Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Monday 18th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today, the Government take a major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind them. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe, and at the heart of that security are the men and women of our armed forces. In this role, I have the privilege of meeting many of those men and women who serve proudly, here in the UK and around the world. I see at first hand their dedication and professionalism and some of the extraordinary sacrifices they make in defence of our nation—from the 700 personnel who rapidly deployed to Cyprus over the summer to support our contingency planning for the safety of UK nationals in Lebanon, to the 140 Royal Navy submariners who I met recently at Faslane as they completed the final leg of their sea patrol. I had to apologise that mine was the first face they saw upon arriving home after so many months. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service.
I know, too, that all Members will join me in recognising that when we talk about loved ones away from home—a spouse or parent who may be deployed at a moment’s notice to another part of the UK or the world—we are talking about sacrifices that are made not only by those in uniform, but by the family members who support them. We cannot say enough that our forces’ families live their lives in service to the nation. As such, the Bill before the House establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life for our serving personnel and their families. That is significant and long overdue.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and welcome his Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. As he has rightly pointed out, the Bill will allow our brave service personnel and their families to make complaints to the commissioner, but that right has not been given to bereaved family members. Can he reassure me and the House that bereaved families will also be given that right?
John Healey
I can indeed. Our definition of “relevant family members”, which is on the face of the Bill, will include bereaved families.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Of course, the other group excluded from that provision is veterans—I speak as a veteran. Why is the Secretary of State not concerned about them? Should they not come under the auspices of this new official too? An example might be those who were exposed to potential contaminants at Camp Lejeune in the US. That is a thematic investigation that the new commissioner might undertake.
John Healey
Our first priority is those who serve and their families—those who are subject to service law. The range of agencies and services that support veterans is very different. A better way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law, as well as the range of steps that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has already started to take. We have taken the view that the commissioner established by this Bill will give their first priority and full focus to those who are serving, as well as their families, who are also impacted by their service life.
As I have said, this Bill is significant and long overdue. It is long overdue because the forces have been badly let down for the past 14 years. The Conservatives have created a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale. Last year, the trained strength of the armed forces fell at the fastest rate for a decade—with 300 more personnel leaving than joining every month—and service morale fell to its lowest level on record. Only four in 10 of our forces personnel report being satisfied with service life. They report that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing their decision to leave.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that while the previous Government systematically failed, communities around the country did their best to support serving personnel and their families through military covenants. Some did that really well, while others did not. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what role he sees for covenants in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner, to ensure that commitments made in good faith by agencies around the country are delivered on so that serving personnel and their families can have easier, more rewarding lives?
John Healey
The covenant sets out the important principle that no one who is serving, or who has served, should be disadvantaged by that service. That is why, as an Opposition party before the election, Labour supported the then Government in their partial translation of the covenant into law. The job is only half done, and we will complete it. We aim to do so through the armed forces Bill that is to come, but although the role of the commissioner will exist in the context of the covenant, they will draw their powers from the legislation before the House. Their role will be defined in this legislation, and they will become a powerful independent voice for those who serve and the families who stand behind them.
Both our forces and their families have been failed for too long. That is why the Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. It is why the Government are putting people at the heart of our defence plans, and why I am now introducing this legislation as a priority in the first legislative Session of this Government.
We cannot reverse those deep-set problems overnight, but our mission is to lift military morale, and in these first four months we have been getting on with that job. We are investing in our servicemen and women, giving them the highest pay rise for over 20 years. We are putting forces families first, expanding childcare for forces families overseas. We are starting to fix forces recruitment with new recruitment targets, cutting red tape and a new direct cyber-route to recruit into the armed forces. We are also improving service life by introducing this Bill in Parliament to establish the Armed Forces Commissioner—a Government delivering for defence and delivering our manifesto commitment to establish that commissioner as an independent champion for our forces and their families to improve service life.
The commissioner will be a direct point of contact for serving personnel and their families, who will be able to raise concerns that may impact on their service lives and their ability to serve: everything from kit to food, housing, medical care, study programmes, promotions, childcare and support for spouses in work. The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military. Dr Eva Högl, the current commissioner in Germany, told me:
“Since 1959, the year the German commissioner was first established, it has become well recognised, respected and unchallenged as an institution in Germany, safeguarding the basic rights of our soldiers.”
She went on to say:
“I would be delighted if this success story were to be repeated in the UK.”
That is exactly what we aim to do.
The commissioner will have the necessary access to personnel, information and defence sites. They will have the power to hear directly from service personnel and family members on their concerns connected with their service, and the power to investigate individual concerns and launch wide-ranging thematic investigations into those issues that materially impact personnel and families of the forces. They will have the power to demand access to information to facilitate their investigations and access to service premises—and in the UK to make those visits unannounced.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
How does the Secretary of State envisage the commissioner standing alongside others in the armed forces in terms of the chain of command? Has an assessment been made on that?
John Healey
The commissioner will be independent and separate from the chain of command, with powers that do not depend on or account to the chain of command in any way. They will have the power to make recommendations to improve service life and to set out the findings of their investigations in reports to be laid before Parliament. Their annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of the forces and what we must do to improve our offer as a Government and as a nation to those who serve. It is my intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each and every year.
The commissioner and their reports will challenge Ministers, will strengthen parliamentary oversight and will raise awareness of the issues facing our forces. The commissioner will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Commons Defence Committee.
Mr Dhesi
The Secretary of State is being generous with his time. I note from the Bill that there is no prospect of approval being sought from the cross-party Defence Committee, although, as the Secretary of State just alluded to, there will be a pre-appointment hearing. Will he give me and the House an undertaking that if the Committee has concerns, he will listen closely to our recommendations and take action accordingly?
John Healey
I am grateful to the Select Committee’s Chair for intervening on this point. The legislation and what I propose reflects the current arrangements and practices in Parliament. I am keen that the Committee exercises the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny—we need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion—and I will certainly listen closely to and take close note of the Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.
The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Of course, the ombudsman’s role is too narrow: it is entirely reactive, it can consider formal individual grievances only after the service complaints system has been completed, and then it can judge only whether that process has been reasonable. I expect that the Armed Forces Commissioner will challenge us to do better in the service complaints system and widely across service life. I expect that the commissioner will develop strong views on improving the service complaints system, and I believe that the future Armed Forces Bill will offer us the right opportunity for that, should primary legislation be required.
This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. There will be, for the first time, a champion for our armed forces; for the first time, a champion for forces families; and for the first time, a champion with serious powers to access every part of service life, who will report in public to Parliament. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
At all times, and on both sides of the House, we should want to ensure that our armed forces have our back and that their morale and the offer from the MOD is as strong as possible. The Opposition recognise that the Bill introduces a manifesto commitment for which the Government have a clear mandate and, moreover, that it creates a new mechanism by which the MOD intends to boost the day-to-day experience of our armed forces personnel. No one could disagree with that goal. While it remains to be seen exactly how the Bill will deliver in practice, we will not oppose it but will be a constructive, critical friend, because the least that those who bravely put their lives on the line to defend our country deserve is proper scrutiny from Parliament in matters of legislation and the armed forces.
Of course, there are areas of welfare not directly affected by the Bill where we want to see further progress, but, in terms of the Bill’s provisions, we wish to probe a number of matters. At face value, there is clearly merit in seeking to ensure extra accountability for how welfare matters are conducted in the forces. I note in particular, as the Secretary of State just stressed, that the commissioner will explicitly not be drawn from the ranks of either the military or the civil service, precisely in order to deliver genuine independence.
In many ways, that provision is not dissimilar to the principle that I wanted to see in the integrated procurement model back in February, with the idea of a second opinion in procurement, not least from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the science base—the point being to ensure that major procurement programmes and the requirement request from the single services could similarly be subject to genuine challenge and transparency. After all, the Sheldon inquiry focused on transparency and openness as key tools to guarding against the bad culture that can pertain without confidence for military personnel and officials to come forward and air their concerns—what we call being “psychologically confident”.
Therefore, in principle, the proposal appears to be consistent with the push for a more transparent culture in defence that makes it harder to hide embedded problems. The most serious such examples could include the issues raised by the Lyons Review and the Defence Committee’s “Women in the Armed Forces” report, as referred to at oral questions earlier by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). As such, if the new office of the commissioner genuinely exposes cultural weaknesses and hidden systemic problems that would otherwise not have been disclosed or would take longer to emerge, it should be welcomed.
That said, such extra transparency cannot be at the expense of operational effectiveness. That is why one of the most significant issues that we will want to probe further is the interaction between the commissioner and the chain of command, especially in sensitive operational settings. The Bill states that visits will not be permitted on national security grounds, but what if the commissioner and the chain of command disagree on whether those grounds apply? Will the Secretary of State adjudicate? If so, how will that work in practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) alluded to in his earlier oral question, how will such visits work in practice without disrupting live operations? We must have clarity.
Off the back of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015, the previous Government did much work to reduce bureaucracy, shorten the complaints process and strengthen oversight. It is important that that is not undermined through the organisational upheaval that the Bill will inevitably generate. What steps will the Government take to ensure a smooth handover, especially in relation to existing casework? A few of our colleagues have experienced that recently.
On the territorial application of the Bill, as things stand there is a permissive extent clause that enables an Order in Council to provide for relevant sections of the legislation to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any of the British overseas territories except Gibraltar. First, what is the rationale for apparently excluding Gibraltar? Secondly, what of the US visiting forces?
As Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the estate, I visited both Lakenheath and Mildenhall in my county of Suffolk, where there is a significant presence of US forces, F-35s and F-15s. I had the pleasure of meeting the then commanding officer, Major General Campo. There were a significant number of infrastructure, planning and other matters where, inevitably, the USVF needed clearance and input from the UK MOD. What will the Commissioner’s responsibilities be in relation to USVF, particularly where British personnel are stationed alongside them? Similarly, what about the personnel of the many nations assisting with training Ukrainians for Operation Interflex on the UK bases? My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a very good intervention. We agree that we want to question the point about veterans, and we will probe that in Committee.
Finally, on costs, we note that the Department expects the annual cost of the commissioner to be higher than that of the current ombudsman, and overall in the region of £5 million. Does the Secretary of State anticipate that the cost will grow further and above that estimation in the years ahead, as the commissioner becomes more established? More broadly, we know that many issues affect morale, recruitment and retention in the armed forces. We want the Bill to succeed, but there remain a number of areas of concern where delivering a better offer to our service personnel is critical.
On recruitment and retention, hopefully all hon. Members understand the critical importance of boarding school to service families, and that there are very few places not in the independent sector. Boarding school provides stability for their children in a career that does not automatically lend itself to such. Yet families affected by VAT on school fees will not find out until December exactly how they will be hit by a tax that commences the very next month. Let us remember that many such families do not receive continuity of education allowance, and will have to cover a 20% hike in fees from their taxed income. That is why the Opposition wanted the type of VAT exemption for all children of service families that is offered to children with special educational needs and disabilities with an education, health and care plan.
Dr Murrison
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just not fair on the small businesses that are independent schools, such as Warminster School in my constituency, which traditionally have taken a significant number of service pupils, to have that level of uncertainty about what the school roll will look like in January?
James Cartlidge
That is an excellent point. I pay tribute to those sorts of schools and how they share in society’s commitment to our armed forces. It has been Labour policy since the 2017 general election—seven and a half years ago—to introduce VAT on school fees. Families who have personnel serving abroad this Christmas will have just December to deal with whatever those new fees mean for them. That is a shockingly short amount of notice.
On pay, we agree that those who serve their country must be appropriately rewarded, which is why in 2023 we announced a core armed forces pay rise of 5%, plus a further consolidated increase of £1,000, equating to a rise of approximately 9.7% for the most junior ranks, and including a freeze in food charges. Alongside pay, accommodation is an important part of the offer from the MOD. We all accept that much more needs to be done, and presumably that will form a key focus for the commissioner. I stand by what I said in the Remembrance debate: the problem is the underlying structural nature of so much of the accommodation in the defence estate. For that reason, as a Minister I wanted to see us potentially buying back the defence estate in England and Wales from Annington, so that we could plan a full rebuild and regeneration of the estate—the long-term solution that I think the Veterans Minister referred to earlier. I hope the Government will take that work forward, but I appreciate that it is highly legally and commercially sensitive, and there is a limit to what they can say on that.
As for the short term, the lesson from our winter plan last year is that investment and a plan for the defence estate can still yield results. Early on as the Minister responsible for the estate, in 2023, I accepted that the previous winter we had let down service families, and with the backing of Ben Wallace and then Grant Shapps, we secured £400 million in the defence Command Paper refresh, and delivered a winter plan that saw thousands of homes treated for issues such as damp and mould. Complaints to contractors fell sharply between 2022 and winter 2023.
That brings me to the final critical point—funding. The new commissioner will almost certainly be assailed with accommodation cases, but any reports that he produces will inevitably form one conclusion: there is a need for more investment in the estate, at a time when there are many other competing priorities. The £400 million that we announced required us to make choices about spending, and to prioritise accommodation and the welfare of personnel over other pulls on funding. It is incredibly important that the Government commit to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence as soon as possible. The Secretary of State will inevitably say that the last time we reached 2.5% was in 2010. I could as easily say that the last time we reached 3% was in 1996. They were two points on a pathway of consistently falling spending since the cold war, because successive Governments believed, like many around the world, that we were in a more peaceful era. That is a statement of fact.
The point is that welfare in the military is about us as a nation and a Government saying to those who serve, “We have your back.” That is impossible without more funding, and that means setting a definitive date for getting to 2.5%. The Conservative party will always support the welfare of service personnel. That is why we will try to work constructively with the Government on the Bill. We will not be dividing the House this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
No one could argue with the honourable intent of the Bill: to improve service life. That is why there is widespread support for its main proposal, an enhanced role with new investigative powers. The Service Complaints Ombudsman and her predecessor have both called for powers along those very lines. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stood for election.
The Defence Committee published a letter last Thursday setting out our initial thoughts on the Bill, to inform the House’s scrutiny today. We had hoped to have time to take account of the views of representatives of armed forces communities, as well as the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but the pace of events made that impossible. As a result, at this stage, my remarks contain more questions than conclusions.
If the Government are to be judged by their own success criteria, the two key questions for the House are these. First, how far will the Bill go towards improving service life? Secondly, is the commissioner established by the Bill given the right powers, protections and resources to act as the strong, independent champion that our gallant armed forces and their families deserve, and that the Government have promised?
On behalf of the Defence Committee, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to address in his winding-up speech the points that we raised in our letter, in addition to those that the Defence Secretary outlined earlier. What are the Government’s priorities for improving the service complaints system? It is striking that the Bill contains only one change to the system, when successive ombudsmen have found that the system as a whole is not efficient, effective and fair. To bring the Bill to life, can the Minister draw to the House’s attention examples of times when the power to conduct investigations on general service matters would have improved service life, if it had existed at that time?
It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, as far as possible, who will be able to ask the commissioner, under clause 4, to investigate a “general welfare service matter”. Will that include members of the reserve forces, family members of reservists, former partners and spouses of serving personnel, and—the Secretary of State has, thankfully, already provided clarification on this—bereaved service families? This is a matter of interest and concern to representatives of armed forces communities such as the Royal British Legion.
The independence of the commissioner will be crucial in maintaining the confidence and trust of the armed forces community.
Dr Murrison
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. May I tempt him to agree with me that the Armed Forces Commissioner should have his or her powers extended to veterans, on the grounds that a lot of the themes that he or she would look at would be hybrid matters that affected both the veterans community and those currently serving? At the risk of being accused of being a one-trick pony, may I suggest that the Camp Lejeune case exemplifies that point?
Mr Dhesi
I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being a one-trick pony. He tempts me, but I would like to consider that point about veterans, reserve forces and so on in Committee and thereafter.
The German armed forces commissioner—the inspiration behind the Bill, as the Secretary of State highlighted—is entirely independent of the German Defence Ministry and armed forces, but that is not the case for the commissioner under the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint and be able to dismiss. The Secretary of State will fund the commissioner and agree their staffing arrangements—I am very grateful to the Minister for his briefing this morning at the Ministry of Defence, at which I was able to highlight some of my initial concerns—and the Secretary of State will be able to constrain the exercise of the commissioner’s powers on broad grounds of national security and personal safety. So when Ministers describe the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner as independent, they must surely mean something else. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain exactly what? And can he tell us why he has not decided to go further in ensuring the independence of the commissioner from his Department? Can he also explain how the commissioner’s resourcing requirements have been estimated, what the process would be if the commissioner asked for additional resources, and who would find out and how if the commissioner was denied resources they had requested?
The Bill arrives during a crisis in armed forces recruitment and retention, at a time when there are high levels of dissatisfaction with service life, and an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. The Defence Committee will be delving into that in greater detail. The Bill cannot solve those challenges on its own. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the Bill sits within a coherent strategy and a set of broader measures, so that the House can consider the Bill in context.
Expectations of the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be high. They will need to be a strong character, with the best interests of the armed forces in mind. They will need to be prepared for questions and challenge, but also to understand, win support, and change hearts and minds. Their success will likely ultimately depend on the support and trust of the armed forces, including the chain of command. What kind of person do the Government imagine filling the role? How, if at all, will the key requirements of the role differ from those for the Service Complaints Ombudsman?
I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister, but he is a very capable individual and he has been taking copious notes. No doubt he will be able to answer all my questions in his speech. My Defence Committee colleagues and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention of allowing the Committee to conduct a non-binding pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the role. As the Secretary of State highlighted, that is in line with practice for the appointment of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The Defence Committee has always offered both support and scrutiny to the ombudsman, and we look forward to working closely with the new commissioner. They will, I hope, become a regular witness before the Committee. I hope that the Government will ensure the smoothest possible transition between the two roles.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today, I speak for my party in
support of the legislation before us. It is clear that the armed forces community has been let down, not least under the previous Conservative Government. The findings of recent reports and surveys are testament to that. In 2023, the Haythornthwaite report found that the most common reason for leaving the armed forces was the impact on family and personal life. Overall satisfaction with service life was at just 45%. Only just over a third of personnel reported that they felt valued by the service. The Atherton report found that
“the MoD and the Services are failing to protect female personnel and to help servicewomen achieve their full potential”.
It is unacceptable that the experience of women in the armed forces, and the challenges that many female personnel face, such as sexual harassment and discrimination, have not been properly addressed.
Armed forces families are also too frequently being let down. In the armed forces continuous attitude survey, one third of spouses said that they would be happier if their partner chose to leave the service. Service families are too frequently unable to get basic support, such as access to information, except through the member of the family who serves. The complaints system is not working. In her most recent annual report to Parliament, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, was scathing about it; she remains
“unable to say that the Service Complaints system is efficient, effective or fair”.
That is the eighth consecutive year that she has reached that assessment. Women remain disproportionately represented in the complaints system.
Those who serve in the armed forces, and their families, are putting their life on the line for our country. It is profoundly disappointing that report after report makes it clear that they have been, and continue to be, neglected, ignored and taken for granted. They deserve better. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just the right thing to do; it is crucial for our national security. The conditions that service personnel and their families endure contribute directly to the crisis in recruitment and retention that our armed forces are experiencing. In an increasingly insecure world, with Putin’s troops waging their illegal war in Ukraine and Trump about to return to the White House, we cannot afford to not take this issue seriously.
The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Bill. We welcome the fact that the commissioner will be a much-needed point of contact for armed forces families; will be a public champion for families, having been tasked in law with raising awareness of the welfare issues faced by the armed forces community; and will be properly empowered to independently investigate complaints—for example, they can arrive on sites without notice. We are pleased that the legislation has been introduced to Parliament less than six months after the election. We will support the Bill, and we will work with Members on all sides of the House to strengthen it during its passage through this House.
I thank the Service Complaints Ombudsman and her office for the work that they have done since 2015, offering independent insight into processes and highlighting the failings of the complaints system. It is right for the work of the office to be subsumed into this stronger role, but as the ombudsman made clear, further work needs to be done to bring the service complaints system up to standard. I would have liked this legislation to be used to set that in motion.
We must ensure that the Bill delivers for armed forces families. Families are at the heart of the Bill, and will clearly be of significant importance to the work of the new commissioner, but clause 4 leaves the definition of “family member” up to the Secretary of State. We hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will commit to a definition in the Bill, so that there is certainty for armed forces families. It is important that we ensure that families made up of kinship carers—there are often aunts and uncles who care for nieces or nephews—are in scope of the definition. We must also think of divorced partners who are still affected. It is vital, too, that bereaved families come in scope of the definition, and accordingly the work of the commissioner. I hope that Members from across the House agree that bereaved families need the advocacy of the new commissioner as much as, if not more than, anyone else in the armed forces community. We also need to ensure that reservists and recruits have equal access to the commissioner. As for female, black and minority ethic, non-UK and LGBTQ+ personnel, the Government must ensure that the commissioner’s office is equipped with up-to-date evidence and community connections to identify issues and be able to reach into those communities.
It is to that advocacy role that I now turn. Clause 1 makes clear that the role of the commissioner will be not just to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families, but to improve the public’s awareness of welfare issues experienced by armed forces families. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on how the Government envisage the interaction of those two separate functions in practice. The crucial issue is resource—we need to ensure that both those ambitions can be met, as well as the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role which is being subsumed into the commissioner’s remit—and I urge the Government to offer assurances on that front. I also hope that the Minister will be able to offer further clarification of the appointment process, as well as subsequent timescales for getting the commissioner’s office up and running. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny of the preferred candidate by the Defence Committee, but what happens if the Select Committee disagrees?
Clearly, whoever is appointed to this role must be truly independent of Government. Under the previous Conservative Government we saw the limitations of the existing public appointments process, even when Select Committees were involved. Giving relevant Committees a confirmatory vote would greatly strengthen the safeguards in the appointments process, and would ensure that the best person for the job was put forward, rather than the best person for the Government. Can the Minister also clarify how the commissioner will interact with the existing Veterans Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the proposed national veterans’ commissioner for England?
The Armed Forces Commissioner must prioritise accessibility to the communities that he or she aims to represent and support. We must ensure that if access is digital only, that does not create a barrier if, for example, people are deployed or have a low reading age. It is vital that our armed forces know who they can turn to for support when they need it. Military personnel are trained to be resilient and endure tough conditions, and the culture does not make it easy for people to reach out; I have personal experience of that. If we are to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner, the Government must include an effort for culture change as well, and I would welcome a greater understanding of how they will achieve that. I understand that people who have served in the armed forces may be considered for this position. Such people could bring valuable knowledge and insight, but how will the Government ensure that they are sufficiently removed from the current culture to bring an independent perspective?
It is also vital that, while welcoming the creation of this new role, we acknowledge that it will in no way be a silver bullet to address the many problems facing the armed forces community, which I have mentioned and which have been touched on by other Members. To deal with serious complaints, for instance, we need to strengthen rules to help support whistleblowers across Government, and the Liberal Democrats continue to support the creation of an office of the whistleblower for that purpose. We urge the Government to go further and fully implement the Atherton report, to ensure that women in the armed forces, who have been let down far too frequently, receive the fundamental protections that they deserve. We should also look at strengthening the armed forces covenant. Will the commissioner’s role include giving due regard to the covenant, and will the Minister agree to strengthen the covenant by placing a legal duty on all Departments to give due regard to it?
We will continue to present proposals to improve the quality of life for service personnel and their families. There are basic steps that we can and should take, such as establishing a one-stop shop for families of service personnel so they can easily gain access to information, including the publication of a guide and an accessible helpline. Housing is also hugely important: service personnel and their families should be able to live in a decent home. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who has campaigned for a decent homes standard for military housing, and I hope that when the Renters’ Rights Bill comes back to the House for its remaining stages, the Government will listen to Liberal Democrat representations on the need to enshrine that in law.
The armed forces community deserves a fair deal. The Liberal Democrats support these measures as a step in the right direction, but we will continue to call on the Government to do more to ensure that service personnel and their families are no longer taken for granted.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill: it is great news. I left full-time service only last year, and it is fantastic to see the pledges that I hoped the Government would fulfil being brought—I hope—into law.
I first encountered these proposals last year when we were joined by Eva Högl, the German armed forces commissioner, in the House for a panel event, only a couple of weeks after I had left full-time service and only one week after my selection as the Labour parliamentary candidate for Plymouth Moor View. It was an exciting moment, but the appointment of an Armed Forces Commissioner seemed very far away. It seemed to be something very positive that the Germans had and that we should have, but to do it would require a Labour Government, and we did not know when the election would be. All that has now come about: we have that Labour Government and we are committed to delivering an Armed Forces Commissioner, and it is great that we are doing so.
I commend the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for the way in which they are approaching the Bill, and for the collegiate atmosphere. I know I speak for many Labour colleagues when I say that matters relating to the welfare of the armed forces and veterans are over-politicised in this country, and approaching them as one House is extremely positive. I hope that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) will be encouraged by the extent to which the Labour party is holding up the German commissioner as a model. For one thing, Eva Högl is a woman, and for another, she has not served in the military. I am sure that those points will be taken into consideration when the Government make their appointment.
As the Bill makes clear, one of the commissioner’s aims will be to promote the welfare of serving personnel and their families, including, as has been mentioned, bereaved families. Another—the second of the functions listed in the Bill—is to improve
“the public’s understanding of the welfare issues faced”
by serving personnel. That is an excellent step, because it will deal with something that holds back serving people, particularly those who are drafted into a new community—anyone who has been in the military will have experienced this—where they have no roots laid down. They are at the mercy of whatever their camp or base can provide. It may be possible for them to obtain military housing in the area, but they may be on camp. Beyond that, they can play a part in local politics and local government, whether it is a parish council or a town council. It can be very challenging for serving personnel to understand and communicate with local government, and I was pleased to hear Members say that many councils have run positive schemes involving armed forces champions and their own armed forces covenants.
In Plymouth—which I represent along with the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—we have a fantastic Plymouth City Council armed forces champion scheme. If Members do not know about it, I urge them to look at it, because I know from speaking to residents that it has had a massive effect for veterans and serving personnel. One of the questions that the Government will face in respect of the Bill is “What is the relationship between the armed forces commissioner and local government—and, as a third party, the tri-service military?” Yes, listening is important, but doing is also important. We need to understand how the commissioner can bring about solutions and outcomes for residents and, obviously, for serving personnel.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned reservists, and I know that they have been mentioned before. When we look closely at the Bill, however, we see that anyone who is subject to “service law”, or military law, will be entitled to access to the armed forces commissioner. Reservists—and, as of last year, I am a proud Royal Marines reservist—are subject to military law when they are serving, but not when they are not on duty. That needs to be clarified. To maximise reservists’ output, which I know the Ministry of Defence is keen to do, we must ensure that they feel wrapped up in the system, not just operationally and not just in training, but in that welfare sense. When will they have access to the commissioner? Will it just be on a Wednesday night when they are in their detachment, or will it be throughout the week? Obviously the answer should be “throughout the week”, and I urge the Govt to commit themselves to that.
Finally, I want to commend the Secretary of State, who has briefly left the Chamber. In the military, people are often taught about having the courage of their convictions. Having an armed forces commissioner who will report to Parliament annually will not be easy for the Secretary of State, because the commissioner is unlikely to report solely good findings every year; in fact, quite the opposite. He or she will probably point out the things that we need to be doing. That is good, because it is the sign of a strong, confident leadership that we are willing to appoint people who will point out flaws in the system that will be difficult and potentially expensive to solve.
All in all, I massively welcome the concept of an Armed Forces Commissioner, and the Bill. There are some detailed questions to which we would love to know the answers, and I look forward to hearing those in due course.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is encouraging to see cross-party support for the Bill, and it is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber this evening with all four former Royal Marines who have come into Parliament in 2024.
I welcome the Bill. We all share the same goal of improving the welfare and support of those who serve in our armed forces and their families. The creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive step towards providing personnel with a direct point of contact to raise concerns and ensuring that issues affecting service life are investigated and reported to Parliament. However, it is crucial that we critically examine the Bill to ensure that it effectively meets the needs of our armed forces community.
The armed forces play an essential role in protecting our nation, and we must ensure that they are equipped, supported and staffed with the best talent. Having seen at first hand the dedication of service personnel at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in my constituency, I understand the commitment of our servicemen and women. However, recruitment and retention are falling short.
Recent data from the Ministry of Defence reveals a troubling trend: last year, the Royal Navy met just 60% of its recruitment target, the Army 63% and the Royal Air Force 70%. Those significant shortfalls underscore the urgent need to enhance the overall offer to our armed forces, to ensure that we can attract and retain the talented individuals essential to safeguarding our nation. That is why we are taking a bipartisan approach to the Bill. We all agree that improving the welfare of our armed forces is essential, and we will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves that aim.
Recruitment is only part of the challenge; retention is just as critical. In the year to October 2023, 16,200 personnel left the armed forces, while only 10,400 joined. That exodus of skilled personnel puts the very strength of our military at risk. At the heart of the retention challenge lies the offer to our service personnel. I served across tri-service units, and I saw that offer at first hand during the last Labour Government and subsequent Governments up to 2015. Although personally I never found an issue and loved my service, as I have become older I have seen friends who have remained in service doing the normal things that we do in life—getting married, starting families and moving to family homes—and witnessed the additional pressures that they have faced. I have heard of the challenges with housing not being up to par.
I know that many of us in the Chamber believe that quality housing and a work-life balance directly impact the desire of service personnel to stay in the military. We must always ensure that our personnel are properly looked after and that their conditions reflect the importance of the role they play. Until we address these issues comprehensively, the retention of talented personnel will continue to be a significant challenge.
It is no secret that since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have all benefited from the peace dividend derived from a unipolar world, which has allowed us to prioritise Government spending in areas outside defence. However, we all know the international threats that we face, and it is essential that our armed forces are in a position to do what they have done best for hundreds of years: defend our country and our interests abroad.
It is essential that we focus on the Bill’s finer details to ensure that it delivers real improvements. Important questions about the scope, resources and independence of the commissioner will need addressing in order to guarantee that this new office will provide tangible improvements for our service members and that the Bill will result in a stronger, more supported armed forces, equipped to retain the best talent to serve our nation.
The commissioner’s role must be clearly defined to avoid overlap with existing military structures. While the Bill grants the commissioner the power to investigate welfare matters, it is crucial that that role does not encroach on areas of military discipline or law. The commissioner should complement, not replace, existing military mechanisms, providing an additional layer of support for personnel when necessary. Other Members have made the point this evening that establishing the rank or grade of the commissioner is essential. We must ensure that the commissioner holds a senior position, but one that respects the operational command and discipline of the armed forces. Although the commissioner will be independent in nature, they will operate in a rank-structured environment, so it is important to establish the grade at which they will be seen among high-ranking military officials.
It is also crucial that the commissioner remains entirely independent of both the Government and the party in power. That independence must be safeguarded not only in the commissioner’s decision making, but in their ability to hold the Government of the day to account without fear or favour. It will be important for the Labour party to set out during our scrutiny of the Bill how that independence will be maintained, and it will be beneficial for the House to understand what commissioner-led ministerial scrutiny looks like.
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), made the point about security and classifications. The commissioner will be granted significant powers to access Ministry of Defence sites and documents, but it is vital that those powers are carefully controlled to prevent any potential compromise of national security or operational integrity. Access to sensitive or operational information should be tightly restricted and permitted only when necessary for investigating welfare issues. The Secretary of State must retain discretion to limit access where national security is concerned, following strict security protocols to safeguard both personnel welfare and military operations.
While the commissioner can investigate welfare matters, it is important that their role does not extend to interfering with military discipline or operational matters. Investigations related to military conduct should remain under the purview of military law. The commissioner’s involvement in relation to wide-ranging welfare concerns or legal matters should be well understood, and we must ensure that there are clear boundaries to avoid disrupting the military’s ability to function effectively.
It is nice to see that the Royal British Legion has lent its support to the Bill—I fully endorse that. I am fully committed to ensuring that the Bill is successfully implemented, but the RBL has raised several important concerns that must be addressed to ensure that the Armed Forces Commissioner functions effectively. Given the RBL’s extensive knowledge and expertise, those concerns deserve careful consideration before the Bill’s final implementation.
The RBL has highlighted that we must ensure that the commissioner is accessible to all service personnel—another point that has been raised this evening—regardless of their digital literacy or deployment circumstances. Relying solely on digital communication risks excluding those with limited access to technology or low digital skills, and those serving in areas with poor connectivity. To address that, we must ensure that alternative methods of communication, such as phone lines or in-person support, are available.
The RBL has also proposed an anonymous reporting mechanism, similar to Crimestoppers, to encourage personnel to raise concerns with confidence and security. While the potential for anonymity to increase reporting is clear, it is vital to strike a balance that allows the commissioner to follow up on complaints and conduct thorough investigations when necessary.
Another point that the RBL has made is that service members may view raising concerns as part of their job or feel that they should handle issues on their own. For the commissioner to be effective, it is important to shift how raising concerns is perceived. The commissioner’s role should help foster an environment in which reporting issues is recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and the wellbeing of personnel. Achieving this will require a focused effort to encourage service members to seek support when needed, without hesitation.
The Bill rightly extends the scope of support to service personnel and their families, but it is essential that that support encompasses all parts of the wider armed forces community, including reservists, recruits and veterans, who each face unique challenges and should not be overlooked. Reservists often juggle civilian careers with military duties—we heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) about some of the problems with that—and may encounter different support needs from regular personnel. Similarly, recruits, who are at the beginning of their service journey, require guidance and resources to ensure a smooth transition into military life. Veterans, having served our country, must continue to have access to appropriate support long after they leave active duty. By ensuring that the commissioner’s office covers all those groups, we can create a truly comprehensive and inclusive support structure that meets the needs of every individual who has committed to serving our nation.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My constituent Major Charles Milroy, who served for a long time in the reserves, pointed out that on deployment it was often difficult for the reserves to access the support in place for serving personnel. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that it might help if the commissioner could look into that aspect of military life?
David Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern. That issue definitely needs to be drawn out during the later stages of the Bill to ensure that everyone across the armed forces community—regulars, reservists and veterans—is listened to by the commissioner.
I think everyone in the House agrees that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a positive step towards improving the welfare of our service personnel, but as we move forward it is crucial that we carefully examine its detail to ensure that it effectively addresses the needs of the entire armed forces community. From defining the commissioner’s role to ensuring broad and equitable access, we must make sure that this Bill delivers real, tangible improvements. Only by getting these details right can we strengthen our armed forces, ensure the retention of our best talents and continue to support those who selflessly serve our country. We must work together in a bipartisan spirit to make this Bill a success and give our armed forces the recognition and support they truly deserve.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I welcome the bipartisan tone and constructive approach taken by the Opposition parties in their contributions. It is fitting that we are debating this Bill for the first time so soon after the Remembrance events held over the last few weeks.
The members of our armed forces who put their life on the line for the safety and security of our country and our people give the greatest service it is possible to give. Over 5% of the adult population of my constituency of North Durham have served in our armed forces. As someone from a civilian background, I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members on both sides of this House who have served.
The Bill is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces because for too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling. According to the latest armed forces continuous attitude survey, nearly six in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “low”, and this figure has sadly been increasing for the last few years. Just one in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “high” and a third of personnel do not feel valued. We know that service life impacts not just those in uniform but their families, too. Whether it relates to housing, employment or the effect on their children, military spouses often have a negative view of the impact that service life is having on them and their family. That is why it is so important that this Bill will create the first ever independent champion, not just for serving personnel but for their families.
The Bill is not only about the welfare of those who serve today; it is about making service life more attractive so that our rates of recruitment and retention in the armed forces improve. We currently have the Service Complaints Ombudsman, established by the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015—but, as the Secretary of State said, their remit is too narrow and reactive. The ombudsman can investigate individual complaints only after the service complaints process has finished, and they do not have the remit to consider broader matters impacting the welfare of serving personnel. Replacing the ombudsman with a new Armed Forces Commissioner who can launch their own investigations and make broader recommendations is therefore a positive step forward. Indeed, that has been called for by successive Service Complaints Ombudsmen themselves. A new Armed Forces Commissioner will give service personnel and their families a direct contact to reach out to, in order to raise issues that impact service life, from equipment to accommodation and unacceptable behaviours.
I note that the Government expect the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner to be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million a year. The German armed forces commissioner—the role on which the Secretary of State has said this new role is based—has 60 parliamentary staff to support them. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how many staff he envisages the UK Armed Forces Commissioner having. The Defence Committee has raised questions about how we can ensure that the commissioner is truly independent from the Secretary of State, and I would welcome further clarity on that.
The Bill fulfils the commitment in our manifesto to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner. It acknowledges the need for change to better support serving personnel, with new powers to carry out investigations, visit defence sites unannounced and report to Parliament. The role outlined in the Bill will clearly have a greater impact than the existing arrangements, to the benefit of service personnel and their families and ultimately, therefore, to the benefit of the morale and the retention rates of the armed forces and the defence of the country. It is another action towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I therefore welcome the Bill.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is interesting to be taking part in a debate that has such an outbreak of consensus—indeed, it is a bit unsettling in this particular Chamber. However, the Scottish National party will be doing nothing to rock the boat given that we welcome the role of Armed Forces Commissioner, especially their authority to investigate welfare complaints from our armed forces. This has been a long time coming. The welcome superseding of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a vital element that allows servicemen and women recourse to a functioning complaint system outwith the chain of command is only going to be good news, and will be in step with the ambitions of many right hon. and hon. Members.
I take this opportunity to commend the foresight of my friend and colleague, the former Member for West Dunbartonshire, Martin Docherty-Hughes, who brought forward his Armed Forces Representative Body Bill in 2019. If that Bill had been supported, it would have achieved many of the same aims as this Bill but five years earlier. Nevertheless, a key development now is the ability of the commissioner to visit defence establishments unannounced and commission reports on what they find there. That is a central and vital improvement over the demonstrably inadequate powers of the ombudsman. The reports will face the scrutiny of colleagues in this Chamber and of the Defence Committee, which is welcome. I know that that scrutiny will be applied with rigour.
The Bill should go a long way towards shining a light on the manifold circumstances in which many in our armed forces and their families have been treated poorly by successive UK Governments. Much of that has been caused by disastrous privatisation misadventures pursued for short-term gains at the expense of long-term value; our men and women in uniform, together with their families, pay the price for that suboptimal policy in their daily lives and routines. We should also note that the issues facing armed forces personnel are already extremely well known, documented and understood within and outwith this Chamber. What the commissioner must reveal, therefore, is the depth and scale of these issues. As has already been touched on, that will necessarily make difficult reading for the ministerial team. I salute their ability to leave themselves open to that scrutiny.
A key factor driving the poor experiences of armed forces personnel is the perpetual misallocation of funding and a lack of political will to establish a verifiable balance between the demands of the state on the armed forces to deliver defence and security, and the vote of funding allocated to the armed forces by the same state to deliver against that priority. Everything has an upper elastic limit, and if the Government do not get their act together on allocating 2.5% of GDP for defence, I greatly fear that our armed forces will exceed their upper limit very soon—commissioner or not. From the junior ranks to the Chief of the Defence Staff, they are asking for nothing other than long-term clarity to allow them to deliver long-term stability.
A key performance indicator of any large organisation, especially one with such an unenviable relationship with recruitment and retention, is morale. That is a key reason why people are leaving in such huge numbers, at tremendous cost to defence in financial and operational ways. The solutions to many of these problems are fairly straightforward, but expensive. They include properly maintained housing stock, better mental health support, better support for families when people are deployed, and decent pay—all of which are outwith the remit of any commissioner. The Bill represents a welcome stride forward, but it is no silver bullet to fix life in the UK armed forces.
As we have already heard, almost 60% of personnel report low morale. Only a third are satisfied with the welfare support that their family receive when they return from deployment, and many personnel live in poor accommodation. Perhaps most importantly for the commissioner, only 23% of serving personnel think that leaders will take meaningful action to address issues identified in the continuous attitude survey. That is not a great report card for this or the previous Government, but it is certainly a starter for 10 for the commissioner.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to welcome the 20 hours of wraparound childcare for service personnel serving overseas that the Government announced this weekend, which will save serving families £3,400?
Dave Doogan
Yes. What’s not to like? I am very happy to support that.
I have two questions that I hope the Minister will address in his summing up. Will the commissioner have the power to investigate the challenges faced by serving personnel within the nuclear enterprise, or will personnel in this service have to continue to suffer in secret?
Scotland, as usual, is out in front with our veterans commissioner, so what learnings will the UK commissioner for serving personnel be able to take from their Scottish counterpart? How does the Minister envisage the commissioners working together? Moreover, given that Wales and Northern Ireland also have veterans commissioners, and that the commissioner proposed by the Bill will not have responsibility for veterans across the United Kingdom, what is the timeframe for veterans in England to enjoy the same benefits as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Alison Hume to make her maiden speech.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to be called to make my maiden speech during this important debate.
I would like to pay tribute to the armed forces personnel and veterans who live in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency. Each year, Scarborough honours their sacrifice and service on Armed Forces Day. The splendid parade marches past Scarborough lifeboat station, where this year the Royal National Lifeboat Institution celebrated 200 years of service.
Back in 1861, a massive storm destroyed nearly 200 ships off the east coast. At Whitby lifeboat station, Henry Freeman was the only volunteer to survive the disaster, thanks to the new design of lifejacket he was wearing, made from strips of cork sewn into a canvas vest.
Incredible designs are in the weft and weave of Whitby. Twice a year, Whitby Goth Weekend welcomes thousands of well-dressed goths who paint the town red—and purple and black. Goths regularly inquire whether Dracula is buried in Whitby abbey or the churchyard. He is not. In fact, Dracula was the relatively recent creation of Bram Stoker, a Victorian theatre manager and author who found inspiration for his blood-sucking vampire when he stayed in Whitby, travelling there on the newly developed railway. Our railways are still associated with horror stories, but today it is more about nightmare journeys.
I pay tribute to my predecessors, Sir Robert Goodwill and Lawrie Quinn, for their work to improve local connectivity. Sir Robert served our constituency for 19 years. He dedicated himself to giving a stronger voice to people who struggled to be heard, and he helped to improve the lives of many residents, particularly in land management, local healthcare and road safety. On behalf of the community, I place on record my sincere thanks for his long years of faithful service, and I wish him and his wife, Maureen, a happy retirement.
Sir Robert’s Labour predecessor, Lawrie Quinn, is fondly remembered by constituents, particularly for helping to secure the award-winning Coastliner bus with its magnificent views. After today’s announcement, we can look forward to more buses, and better buses, in Scarborough and Whitby.
Opposite Scarborough station stands the Stephen Joseph theatre, the theatrical home of one of our finest living playwrights, Sir Alan Ayckbourn, the jewel in our creative crown.
Our stunning constituency covers 285 square miles. The beauty of our sweeping coastline and purple-topped moors has been captured in many television dramas and films. Goathland sits in the heart of the glorious North York Moors national park, with a station on the pretty Esk Valley railway. It has doubled both as Aidensfield station in “Heartbeat” and as Hogsmeade station, from where Harry Potter catches a steam train to his school for wizards.
While we are on wizardry, I would like to thank the House of Commons staff for making us freshers feel so welcome, and especially for not laughing as I circled endlessly through the various corridors, absolutely convinced that, just as with Hogwarts, nothing ever seems to be in the same place as it was the time before.
Talented young people in coastal towns surely deserve the same opportunities in the creative industries as their peers in the cities. I will work hard to bring these opportunities to Scarborough and Whitby, and to attract investment for training and skills in the industries of the future.
At its headquarters in Scarborough, Alexander Dennis—formerly Plaxton—is leading the way with its innovative electric buses. We are also uniquely positioned to benefit from the vast wind farms being built off our coast, but we must move quickly to ensure that our towns can service the green energy industry.
As the turbines turn, we need to take care that our fragile but precious inshore fishing industry is supported into a sustainable future. Our fishing towns and villages serve up so much more than the best fish and chips in the country. We have a delicious combination of tradition and innovation. Herrings are still smoked traditionally by five generations of the Fortune family to produce the famous Whitby kippers, which my late father adored.
As the lobster export capital of Europe, Yorkshire is indebted to the parents and carers of thousands of baby lobsters nurtured at the Whitby lobster hatchery. Scarborough is the country’s frozen chip capital, home to McCain Foods, and it is also home to SeaGrown, the first seaweed farm in Europe.
As for our traditional farmers, I understand that this is a difficult time for them. I was recently delighted to visit the Low Yedmandale and Spikers Hill farms outside Scarborough to better understand the challenges faced by our family farms.
Times are tough for far too many constituents. I thank the numerous organisations and charities dedicated to making lives better, including the Gallows Close centre, the Rainbow centre, Westway Open Arms, Flowergate Hall, the Eastside community centre, Closer Communities, Dalewood Trust, WHISH—Whitby Hidden Impairment Support and Help—and many others, too numerous to mention.
I am honoured to represent such a resilient and hard-working community, and I believe we are a good fit. My late mother was born into poverty in Hull. Under a Labour Government, she was able to retrain for free as a mature student to become a primary school teacher—a job she loved.
My son Edward was born with complex disabilities. Under a Labour Government, we benefited from the huge investment in health, in education and in schemes such as Sure Start. At 25, Edward has finally achieved his dream of going to university, and today he is watching his mum achieve hers.
Under this Labour Government, I will play my part as we lift more children out of poverty, address the crisis in special educational needs and disabilities provision, and improve life for paid and unpaid carers. I truly hope that I can repay the trust that my constituents have put in me.
In closing, as the first woman to represent Scarborough and Whitby, I pledge to play my part in our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. As a proud graduate of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership scheme, I hope to honour Jo’s memory. I can see her coat of arms from where I stand. She may not have sat on the Government Benches, but she left a legacy that will ensure that hundreds more women like me will sit on them in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). With name like Hume, I presume that she must have some Northern Irish ancestry. I congratulate her on a superb maiden speech. Her constituents will be extremely proud of her contribution. We look forward to hearing a whole lot more from her in the future. I have a special interest in Whitby and Scarborough, simply because it is “Heartbeat” territory. I am from the generation that can remember all the songs from the 1960s, which is probably why I started to watch that programme. It is a pleasure to hear from the hon. Lady. I knew the right honourable Gentleman who represented the constituency before her, and I know that he will be just as pleased as the rest of us that she is here.
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate. I declare an interest as I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for three years, and in the Royal Artillery and Territorial Army for 11 and a half years. I am invested, as are all Members who have served in the armed forces, as well as those who have not, in the legislation before us. I am minded of the tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of people who have served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to see the Minister for the Armed Forces in his place. I do not want to give him a big head, but whenever the Minister brings something to the Chamber, he always asks for our opinions and contributions, which means a lot to MPs. It is the honest way of doing things, and I thank him for that. Earlier on, the Secretary of State rightly said that this is “landmark legislation”. I think every hon. Member will greatly welcome it.
I welcome the fact that the legislation will apply to Northern Ireland, something that we in Northern Ireland do not take for granted when it comes to the armed forces and what appears to be an appeasement of those who hate those armed forces in Northern Ireland. For the record, I commend Councillor Trevor Cummings, the veterans champion for Ards and North Down borough council, in my constituency of Strangford, on his great work and his interest in Army and police issues. He will welcome this legislation, just as I welcome it. We look forward to it being implemented in Northern Ireland to the same extent that it is implemented in England.
I am pleased that respect and access to armed forces personnel support will be available, unlike access to the military covenant, which my party had to fight to see implemented in any form for our veterans. For too long, veterans in Northern Ireland have been treated as second class citizens, shamed for simply doing their duty. I hope this legislation signals a new approach to veterans in Northern Ireland. I asked the Minister a question in Defence questions earlier, and he came back with a very positive answer. I hope he will be able to repeat his answer, so that it is recorded in Hansard and will provide reassurance to people back home. I would like clarity about how the commissioner will ensure that those serving in all parts of the United Kingdom are treated equitably in the exercise of the new commissioner’s functions. I received a positive answer from the Minister when I asked that question earlier.
Given Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to reserve forces, we have a particular interest in ensuring that the commissioner provides an effective outlet for members of our armed forces and their families—it is important that we have that. How will the commissioner’s remit interact with the armed forces covenant, which was there before? There was some difficulty with that covenant, but I am encouraged by this legislation and I hope we will welcome the Bill’s Third Reading before too long.
I was pleased that in the King’s Speech, there was recognition of the gratitude owed to those who have made sacrifices for our freedom and liberty. Today, we are here to scrutinise the outworking of that gratitude. In my opinion, that is not extravagant or groundbreaking, and a proper service should always have been delivered to those whose quality of life has been impacted by their service.
In common with many other hon. Members, I know too many veterans whose internal scars from service have precluded them from keeping relationships with their family, keeping steady jobs or building friendships with people who simply cannot understand what they have been through. Many of those proud men and women would never apply for help, or complain about the lack of support that they have received. I welcome the fact that family members can now advocate to the Armed Forces Commissioner for services for a veteran; that is a massive step forward for veterans and their entire family unit. It is good news. Where we have seen difficulties before, we can see positives, going forward, which is good.
I hope that part of the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner will be to ensure that veterans have an accessible route to support that will skip the red tape and arrive at a sensible approach. It is important that if a service member retires or leaves service while the commissioner is still processing a complaint, it is effectively transferred to the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. Will the Minister tell us where that will fit into the process? A joined-up approach is important, so I seek assurance that that will happen.
The Minister for Veterans and People is not in his place, but I know that he will be back shortly. I have invited him to visit the Beyond the Battlefield veterans centre in Portavogie in my constituency. Both the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Veterans Minister know it well, and I hope that the Veterans Minister will visit in the near future. The centre was designed and built with short-term respite for veterans in mind. It is a place for veterans and their families to come to for a break, with counselling services available, and for a change, to enjoy the peaceful and restful environment of the incomparable Ards peninsula, where I happen to live. The centre is excellent and is up and running. Harbour House provides shelter to ex-service personnel who are homeless or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The centre does an excellent job, for which we are very grateful. Beyond the Battlefield, a charity that helps serving and retired members of the service community, transformed a once derelict building into a dedicated veterans centre. The charity provides practical help and advice on issues such as PTSD, war pensions, benefits, housing, medals and funerals. I have been pleased, privileged and honoured to work alongside the charity’s staff to help veterans move forward and make their life better.
Entering Harbour House, veterans come into a welcoming reception area with tea and coffee making facilities, and there are 10 bedroom suites. The charity does a phenomenal job. There are plans to extend the facility, and I am sure that the Veterans Minister will be asked about that when he visits. The previous Government had hoped to provide some funding. I do not want the charity to have to come to the Government cap in hand, but it wants to do what it does better, and to add to what it has in place. Those 10 bedroom suites are full all the time, but the building could be extended to increase its capacity—and it would still be full.
In Northern Ireland, we have a commitment to service. We never needed conscription in Northern Ireland because we were always able to get volunteers. When the Veterans Minister comes, we will show him the phenomenal job that Beyond the Battlefield is doing. It has a coffee shop that is open to the public, which helps to meet people’s needs and is well supported, but central funding is severely lacking. It is the only veterans respite centre in Northern Ireland. Its importance cannot be sufficiently underlined. It serves and looks after veterans from the six counties, and probably further afield.
Beyond the Battlefield cannot secure funding, and relies on charitable fundraising. If someone wants a cup of coffee or a meal, Harbour House has been commended for its food. There is scope for more rooms to be created, and more good work to be done. The installation of the armed forces commissioner has been endorsed and supported by everybody, because it is the right thing to do, and will be best for everyone across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It will provide greater focus on the needs of our armed forces and veterans, and I believe that support for projects such as Beyond the Battlefield will naturally flow from it.
I again thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby for setting the scene for this young man to make his contribution. She is the star; I am just a follower. Most of us in this House attended remembrance services last week. We are all aware of the debt that we owe to not simply those who gave their life in the world wars, but all those who have served—in guerrilla warfare from Afghanistan to Armagh, and from Erbil to Enniskillen. The debt is not paid in one day, with the recitation of a poem—I do not mean that disrespectfully—but through living and breathing. I hope that the creation of this post will breathe fresh air into the obligation that we have to those who offer us their all; I am convinced that it will.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) on her excellent and evocative speech. I remember those sweeping coastlines and purple-topped moors; I used to fly over them in my RAF C-130. She will be an excellent advocate for her community and all those who come up behind her in the Jo Cox Foundation.
Our forces can defend our country effectively only if the bonds of trust between service people and leaders are strong. I welcome the Government’s action on our manifesto commitment to establish an armed forces commissioner and fix the complaints system, which has been broken for many years. Action is urgently needed. Confidence in the service complaints system remains low, despite the work that the Service Complaints Ombudsman has done. The ombudsman herself has concluded, every year for the last eight years, that the system does not operate in an efficient, effective or fair way. In what other area of public life would such sustained failure be allowed to persist?
Fundamental issues need to be addressed that go beyond performance standards on individual complaints. The biggest problem with the current system is that it individualises complaints and encourages mediation in each instance. In my experience, that can result in abusive or incompetent individuals remaining in place and perpetuating harm over many years, even though they have had many complaints against them. Surely we can learn the lessons from the Letby case, police disciplinary cases and similar cases of very public systemic failures over recent years. The commissioner needs to be empowered to seek out the bigger picture and the pattern behind individual complaints, and escalate them proportionately. As we know, often a small number of individuals wreak enormous damage on not only their many victims but the organisation as a whole because of the hostile and discriminatory environment that they create. Only systems that proactively identify patterns of behaviour and root out abusers will deliver a safer and fairer place for everyone in our forces community.
The commissioner’s work needs to form a normal part of service life. Service people rarely want to be seen as a whistleblower. Rightly or wrongly, many do not want to go outside the system, due to perceptions of letting the forces down, so we need to be clear that when someone communicates with the commissioner about their experiences, they are staying within the armed forces community, and acting in the best interests of all our armed forces. At the same time, we need people to have confidence that their communications will be secure, and that they will be protected from any possibility of reprisals. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how the Government see such communications with the commissioner compared with whistleblowing in civilian life. It might be necessary to set out in the Bill the protections that are relevant to service complaints to clarify that.
Improving the complaints system will be effective only if we address the experiences of every part of our armed forces community, including women in our armed services, service personnel from ethnic minority backgrounds, non-UK passport holders, and LGBT+ service personnel. There is troubling evidence of differential treatment for service personnel from those backgrounds. It is vital that we address that in the interests of fairness, to ensure that our forces are more representative of the communities they serve and to address ongoing issues of recruitment and retention. The Bill presents an opportunity to effect change, so I would be grateful for anything that the Minister could set out about how he expects the commissioner to establish connections with those communities and work with them proactively to gain an understanding of what is required.
Equally, the commissioner needs to represent the wider armed forces community beyond regular service personnel. Service families are clearly critical to many of the commissioner’s functions, but I hope that it is made completely clear that the bereaved are equally deserving of our continued support, if they wish for it. The Royal British Legion has rightly pointed out the relevance of the Haythornthwaite review, and its central recommendation that there be a move towards a fluid spectrum of service, where people can move easily between regulars and the reserves. Working towards that will surely require action from the commissioner to ensure that the needs of reservists and recruits are being met.
I welcome the Government’s ongoing work to meet our manifesto commitment to put the armed forces covenant into law. I am mindful of the cross-departmental nature of many of the issues that affect service personnel—something that is rightly made explicit in the covenant. I wonder whether, as the Bill progresses, we should consider setting out the relationship between the commissioner and the Cabinet Office, to give a clear point of contact within Government and a way to easily escalate complaints that are impacted by cross-Government working. Surely it would be best to future-proof the Bill by ensuring that the commissioner’s structures fit with the covenant from the outset, although I accept that the Department’s thinking about the best legal form for the armed forces covenant may not yet be complete. Will the Minister set out any early thoughts on that?
Ultimately, the Bill represents very welcome action from the Government to give the people who keep us safe a more effective guarantee of safety and fair and decent treatment in return. It is equally welcome that we are learning from our European partners about the design of the institution, and placing emphasis on transparency and accountability to Parliament. My hope is that the Bill will form part of a wider shift in how the armed forces community works to deliver on the promise of defence as a truly rewarding career of service. If we can achieve that, our country will be safer for it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I declare an interest and a huge sense of pride in taking part in this debate: I have cousins who serve in the Army and the Royal Air Force, and a son in the Royal Navy, all of whom are under 30. Hopefully, because of the Bill, they are at the start of long and successful armed forces careers. Also, my constituency of Portsmouth North is the home of the Royal Navy. I am glad that the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is not here to argue about that.
Amanda Martin
I meant the other one—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas). I am proud to be part of a mission-led Government but, as the Secretary of State said earlier, no mission from a Labour Government is complete unless it is our first duty to keep our country safe. Peace and security are hard earned and require constant vigilance and a well-staffed and—dare I aspire to say—a happy armed forces workforce.
This Bill is groundbreaking in its mission, with 183,000 service personnel and their families at its heart. It provides the opportunity and the authority for an independent commissioner to investigate welfare complaints not only from those serving, but from their families. It also gives the commissioner the opportunity and the authority to horizon scan, to highlight trends, to visit our bases and listen to personnel and their families, to launch investigations when needed and, ultimately, to improve the world of work and the lives of those who so often put this country first.
I welcome the stance of the whole House and the cross-party commitment to this Bill. Real change cannot come quickly enough. Attrition rates continue to grow and morale among our service personnel continues to plummet. At the moment, recruitment is outstripped by those leaving, so retention is a real concern. Despite 81% of our service personnel feeling supported by their families and their colleagues, it is upsetting that almost 50% do not feel that their families and their family life are supported by the service. Impact on family and personal life remains the top factor influencing those leaving the services.
It would be remiss of me not to note that in my Portsmouth North constituency the concerns around armed forces housing are very high. With three quarters of our personnel living in service accommodation, it is vital to be able to hear the voice of those serving and their families, and to use that to improve housing, communities, childcare and the lives of our forces and their families. This Government are serious about keeping our country safe and making our armed services a priority. With a pay rise already awarded, with an announcement on childcare provision already made, with a new cyber-route and the cutting of red tape in recruitment, and now with a Bill providing an armed forces champion, with real voices and real experiences at its centre, this is a step to building back that eroded trust and pride. Just as I do when my son returns from sea, we as a Government are putting our arms around service personnel and their families.
This will not be easy, and it will not be quick. Issues will be uncovered that will be uncomfortable and possibly costly. Cultures might need to change, the Secretary of State will be presented with reports and independent investigations, and Parliament will need to address these issues. Success or failure will be measured and voiced, as it should be. Will the Minister assure me that, however difficult the outcomes, the reports and the words that we hear from our service personnel, we will commit to having a truly independent commissioner, so that our armed services feel they have the trust to go to them? In delivering this Bill into law, we will not only say, but show by our actions, how much we value the service and dedication of our armed forces personnel and their families.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
My constituency is the proud home to the 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team, and the garrison and wider community are home to many serving personnel and their families. We know that the men and women in our armed services serve our nation proudly and put their lives at risk to defend the freedoms we all hold dear. I pay a personal tribute to my father-in-law, my nephew and other members of my extended family who have served and serve today.
I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life for our forces and the families who support them—and here I pay tribute to my mother-in-law for all that she did on that score. This Bill delivers on that promise. The last Government hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces, but the extra £2.9 billion announced in the Budget puts us back on the path of investment in our defences and our defence workforce.
I am very pleased that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for serving personnel and their families. The commissioner will be able to raise issues that impact service life, including access to good quality housing and childcare. I know that, while Army families in Colchester provide so much support for each other, they often do not feel that they get the support they deserve, and that needs to change. The last Labour Government introduced the armed forces covenant, and I welcome this Government’s commitment to incorporating that covenant fully into law.
In Colchester we are supported by many great organisations such as the Army Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and regimental charities such as Support Our Paras. I thank them for the work they do, and I would like to see the new commissioner working hard and closely with them. I am also pleased that this Bill supports other wider changes that the Government are already making to support our veterans—a point made earlier by Opposition Members. We have already delivered on our manifesto commitment to make the veterans ID card an accepted form of voter ID. We have acted to improve veterans’ access to secure, healthy homes and we have invested £3.5 million of additional funding for veterans’ homelessness support programmes. This Government are absolutely committed to the welfare of veterans.
I am delighted that this Labour Government are introducing the Armed Forces Commissioner post. I have written about commissioner roles elsewhere and compared their powers; I hope that this role will be as strong as the strongest of the rest. If so, that commissioner will be a strong independent voice for our forces in Colchester and across the country, committed to improving service life. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I echo other hon. Members who have said how nice it is to hear from so many servicemen and women in this House, and so many hon. Members who represent service communities, who are collectively behind this Bill.
Just over a week ago we observed Remembrance Sunday, a solemn day to honour the courage, dedication and sacrifice of our armed forces. That annual act of remembrance is a poignant reminder of the immense debt of gratitude we owe those who serve. It is therefore fitting that the Government have in the same month introduced the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which rightly recognises that improving the lives of service personnel and their families is not only a moral duty, but a necessity if we are to recruit and retain the people we need.
Over the past decade our armed forces have faced significant challenges, compounded by underfunding and a series of cuts. Research has laid bare the reality: optimism among the armed forces has reached record lows, and recruitment and retention are in a state of crisis. Annual surveys of service personnel consistently reveal high levels of dissatisfaction with service life. Nearly 60% report low morale and less than half express satisfaction with their service experience. Those figures speak volumes about the pressing need for reform and meaningful change.
I know how bad it has become, because I come from a service family. I grew up living on an RAF base and I followed my dad and brother into the armed forces. In recent years we have all seen the deterioration in the experience of service life, with the state of accommodation in particular being a huge problem. For example, my brother, after 20 years’ service in the Royal Air Force, was expected to live in accommodation that had rising damp and sewage leaking into part of the premises. His family, with a young daughter, was expected to live in a house with black mould and broken plumbing. That is unacceptable. We would not expect prisoners to live like that, and we should not expect our brave servicemen and women and their families to live in such conditions.
I have spoken to many people in my constituency and elsewhere who have a similar story: poor housing and a lack of action from those who have responsibility. That is why it is so important to have an Armed Forces Commissioner to advocate on behalf of service personnel such as my brother when their voices go unheard. This commissioner will provide a powerful and independent voice for service personnel and the families who support them. They will report directly to Parliament, ensuring accountability and transparency in addressing the needs and concerns of those who serve, and the framework will give service personnel confidence that their voices are heard, their issues are taken seriously and they have a robust advocate working on their behalf.
Every year we stand together as a nation to pay tribute to those who have given their lives in service to our country, but that tribute must go beyond words and ceremonies; it must be matched by concrete actions by the politicians entrusted with representing their interests. As a veteran, I understand how deeply service shapes not only those who serve, but their families. I am proud to stand here today both as an MP and as a former Royal Marine to lend my full support this Bill at Second Reading. This legislation is a step in the right direction and a step towards ensuring that every member of our armed forces knows that their sacrifices are valued and that they are supported by a system designed to protect their interests and those of their families. For too long, those needs have gone unmet. This Bill is an opportunity to change that.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
May I, too, begin by welcoming contributions from across the House? It has been a remarkably cross-party, consensual debate so far, and I am sure that will continue. Unlike some who have spoken, my family do not have a veteran, but I grew up for three and a half years on an RAF base in Berlin. It was subject to something called the Berlin budget, which ensured that adequate housing was not a problem, thanks to taxpayers in Berlin. It is interesting that this provision is modelled on an existing German position—that is always something I would welcome, and a country that I have great feelings for.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as this Labour Government continue at pace to put in place more of the many commitments made to my constituents, and others, in our manifesto. The Government have already taken action to stabilise our economy, unleash investment, and reform the House of Lords. For Scotland, the recent Budget saw a record £3.4 billion of additional funding, a pay rise for 200,000 Scots, and many other benefits. In defence, as others have mentioned, the Government have increased pay for our armed forces, delivered an extra £2.5 billion for the defence budget, on top of £3 billion annually for Ukraine, for as long as it will take to defeat Vladimir Putin.
The Bill will help to protect those serving in our armed forces and their families. In the Dunfermline and Dollar region and the wider part of Fife we have a proud heritage of military families, both serving and in veteran communities. From the Royal Navy and Rosyth Dockyard in my constituency, to the former RAF base at Leuchars, now used by the Army, the existing RAF base at Lossiemouth, the nuclear deterrent on the Clyde, and training grounds for commando and special forces units throughout the highlands, Dunfermline, Fife and Scotland know a lot about what is needed to support soldiers and their families, which is why I welcome the Bill.
Forces families face long periods apart, frequent moves, educational changes, housing issues—those have already been mentioned—inconsistent access to healthcare, and sometimes even different tax arrangements within the UK. The nature of the military, with the vital and necessary chain of command can lead, and in the past has led, to a closed shop, and the development of toxic and unhelpful practices and cultures. While some issues must continue to be dealt with by the chain of command, because the role of serving personnel often means that their families must follow them around, there must also be a route that allows them to raise broader issues of concern—something that the Bill will achieve with the Armed Forces Commissioner.
As others have mentioned, we must ensure that living conditions are appropriate for our armed forces personnel, both with their families and when apart. It is unacceptable to expect our armed forces to live in inadequate housing, not just from a health perspective but because that is not conducive to modern family life. I spoke recently to veterans in my community, and they said that sometimes they would just welcome access to adequate wi-fi, so that they can keep in touch with their families when abroad. On a related matter, I strongly welcomed the announcement by the Prime Minister and the Government’s actions with the homes for heroes commitment, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and his ministerial team, for the rigour that I know they are applying to its implementation. I wish we could see more action, particularly from the SNP in Scotland, where I would like to see a much more committed approach to services for our armed forces and veterans.
If we do not begin to address some of these issues quickly and directly, and with the highly competitive career market that we face, it will only become harder to recruit and retain armed forces personnel. In an ever more unstable world, we must ensure that UK armed forces are an attractive employer, not only for those on the frontline but for the thousands of essential staff who might otherwise choose to work in the private sector, in areas such as logistics or technology.
We must ensure that bullying, harassment and discrimination are driven from our armed forces at all levels. Not only is that the right thing to do, and how we make the armed forces an attractive and responsible employer, and not only is it how we build and maintain morale, and recruit and retain staff, but it is also how we ensure that our armed forces are able and ready to fight when we need them to. The independent role that the Bill seeks to establish offers the possibility to create an effective and independent process that will provide people with confidence that they can raise concerns and see an established and transparent process for how those concerns will be investigated and addressed quickly and effectively. I do not welcome the future position of Ministers who must respond to some of these reports, as I believe they will lay bare some of the challenges that have been allowed to build up over years and decades, but face them we will and face them we must.
When the Minister responds, will he explain how the commissioner is intended to work with the devolved Administrations and local authorities inside those Administrations? Where we have another layer of government, we must ensure that it does not fail local authorities—I am, of course, thinking particularly of Scotland. It has taken a long time for a Parliament and Government to recognise and address the different lives lived by our armed forces and their families. It should be no surprise that it has once again taken a Labour Government to take the necessary action to protect our armed forces.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Last week I commended the Secretary of State’s introduction of this Bill as a promise made and a promise fulfilled. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces communities. As a Scottish Labour Member of Parliament, I am proud to speak in support of it today. The Bill represents this new Government’s determination to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve and protect our country. I know this Government will always stand up for our armed forces; that is why they have already confirmed the largest pay rise for personnel in 20 years.
At its core, the Bill is about ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform are properly supported and protected, and that they are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve throughout their careers. Our armed forces are an essential part of the fabric of our national life, both in Scotland and across the UK as a whole. That is brought to life in my Livingston constituency, which is home to the Military Museum Scotland at Wilkieston. That fantastic, award-winning museum covers Scottish military history from world war one to the present day. West Lothian is also home to the Ancre Somme Association Scotland, a wonderful charity with Councillor Harry Cartmill, who represents Bathgate, as its chairman and founding member. ASA prioritises the education of local armed forces history, working with schools, communities, veterans, families and serving personnel, to show the importance of our armed forces in our communities.
From Scottish regiments that have served with distinction on battlefields across the world to present day personnel based in the Livingston constituency, and towns and cities across Scotland, our servicemen and women stand ready and willing to defend our way of life. They not only serve our country but embody the values that we hold dear: duty, loyalty, sacrifice and service. Too often, however, we hear of the struggles faced by service members, such as difficulties in accessing mental health services, or issues with accommodation or childcare.
The creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner represents a significant step forward in addressing those challenges. As a strong, independent champion for serving personnel and their families, the commissioner will be a direct point of contact for people to raise issues that impact service life. Not only will the commissioner be a voice for the concerns of serving families, but they will also hold the Government—any Government, including this one—accountable. As many Members have said, it shows real leadership that we are willing to put that on the line to ensure that every year we have to respond to those challenges.
The Bill has the support of service personnel, the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland. Feedback from Germany on the establishment and functioning of a similar role indicates strong support from service personnel for an independent commissioner. This Labour Government are a champion of our armed forces, as all Labour Governments before them have been. A Government’s first duty is to national service and the defence of our country, and that includes a duty of care to those who take up that burden.
In conclusion, the new Armed Forces Commissioner must have the powers needed to investigate complaints, scrutinise the Government’s actions and ultimately provide meaningful recommendations for action. The Bill is a commitment to ensuring that the welfare of our armed forces personnel is not an afterthought but an ongoing priority day in, day out. It is a recognition of the need for a long-term vision for a better future for our forces. I believe the establishment of the commissioner will help us to build a military that is not only strong in its purpose, but strong in its support for those individuals who serve in it.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I start by saying how humbling it is to share these Benches with those who have served our country? You add far more to this debate than I could ever hope to, and it is a genuine honour to have heard so many of you speak today.
Our armed forces are too small; in the current geopolitical climate, that fact is undeniable. In this era of unprecedented global uncertainty, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: are our defence capabilities sufficient to protect our nation, uphold our values and fulfil our obligations to allies? Russia’s brutal aggression in Ukraine has made one thing clear: conventional warfare is not a relic of the past, but a clear and present danger. Regardless of the decisions made by our closest ally the United States in the coming months, the UK must urgently stand ready to act with our allies. We must assert our position as a key strategic player in global security. To achieve that, we need a solid foundation for the expansion of our military capabilities, and that begins with addressing the challenges of recruitment and retention.
Since 2011, we have missed our recruitment targets in every year but one. This Bill is critical to solving that crisis and arresting the decline. Fundamentally, it seeks to strengthen advocacy and accountability by establishing an independent figure dedicated to addressing issues faced by service members, including housing, healthcare, mental health and family support. The commissioner will have new powers to proactively investigate systemic problems, rather than simply reacting to scandals as they emerge, such as the housing issues we have heard so much about today. By holding decision-makers accountable, the commissioner will drive improvements that make military life more attractive to current personnel and potential recruits.
Make no mistake: the passing of this Bill and the creation of this role will and should make the lives of decision-makers more difficult, as they are rightly challenged at every turn to do better by our armed forces. That proactive approach will enhance trust and transparency, creating a real sense that service members’ concerns are heard and acted upon. The Armed Forces Commissioner will provide a direct point of contact for personnel and their families, ensuring that their voices shape the future of military life.
The Bill is part of a broader effort by the Government to honour the men and women of our armed forces, so I welcome the wraparound childcare for military families deployed overseas, which recognises the sacrifices that service families make. I welcome that after years of real-terms pay cuts, we have seen the biggest pay rise in 22 years delivered by this Labour Government. That is a critical and much-needed break from the recent past. I welcome the armed forces covenant being fully enshrined into law, ensuring that those who serve and their families are treated with fairness and respect. I speak to countless Hartlepool veterans, who have told me that far too many public services, whether GP practices, dentists, housing providers or others, pay only lip service to that covenant. That must change.
Finally, I commend the Prime Minister’s commitment to homes for heroes, an initiative to end the disgrace of veteran homelessness. Veterans must be at the front of the queue if we are to honour their service to our country. In an uncertain world, we must expand our armed forces, but we can succeed only by renewing our country’s contract with those who serve or who have served, supporting them and their families. An independent advocate for service personnel, a real-terms pay rise and tangible support for veterans are not just policies, but the patriotic foundations of a stronger, more secure future.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the MP for Sandhurst, I am proud to represent the home of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where every British Army officer starts their journey of service; it is important to reflect that in recent years that service has not necessarily been repaid by us. I am alarmed that only four in 10 service personnel are satisfied with service life, and the fact that the armed forces are shrinking due to a recruitment and retention crisis should worry us all.
With that in mind, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner, as part of the Government’s overall plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve us. It is vital that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be independent. I noted with interest the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee, on that point; I also noted the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) that the overwhelming proof of that independence will be whether the commissioner is in a position to shine a light on welfare matters, to address issues of culture and to raise the quality of service life. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. On that note, it is welcome that the commissioner will be able to bring their reports to Parliament for us to scrutinise. It is also vital that the role should be a powerful voice for service families; those who serve are too often constrained by the lack of support for those who support them in their important role. I also welcome the proactive investigatory powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner.
The Bill is welcome, but it is important to note that it is only part of a wider commitment to supporting our armed forces, which includes decent pay rises, with 35% more pay for recruits; £3.5 million more to support veterans facing homelessness; and the expansion of the veterans card as an approved form of voter ID. It will be digitised, too. This weekend, 20 hours of wraparound childcare for service personnel serving overseas was announced, which will save families £3,400. That is important because too often serving members of our armed forces find that their families at home are not given the support while they serve our country overseas. That has to change in a modern world where—in the armed forces, as in the rest of society—two members of a household will often be working. It is important for us to give that support for family care, including to single parents who are serving.
Finally, I take this opportunity to reflect on the grim anniversary that we face tomorrow: 1,000 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is an important moment to reflect on the sacrifice and service we ask of our armed forces, as we look to the brave service of Ukrainian soldiers facing up to the aggression of Putin’s illegal war. The world is a more dangerous place. We ask a great deal of those who serve for us, and they do so knowing that they may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. With that in mind, it is vital that we renew our contract with those who serve us, so that we serve them. The Bill is an important step in getting that right.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and the cross-party support for it. The Government could not have introduced the Bill at a more prudent time, as our service personnel have made it clear over many years that they are not getting the quality of support that they need, whether because of poor responses to concerns and complaints, the quality of homes or the treatment of women and other minority groups.
The Ministry of Defence’s most recent attitude report showed that morale amongst service personnel fell for the third year in a row. Only around a third of military personnel reported feeling valued by their service, despite the vital defence role they play. Pay satisfaction, which last year was at its lowest recorded level, had increased by only 1%. It is time that those concerns were addressed.
We know that the Government have already announced the largest armed forces pay increase in 22 years, and the introduction of the armed forces commissioner represents even further investment in the welfare of our forces. This vital support is not only incredibly well deserved but long overdue. Ten units are stationed at Chetwynd barracks in my constituency of Broxtowe, and the establishment of an armed forces commissioner will transform how the concerns and needs of our armed forces personnel and their loved one are addressed.
In an ever-changing defence landscape, it is key that the Government ensure that our armed forces have a dedicated spokesperson and advocate to ensure that their voices are heard at the highest levels. It is time that we create an infrastructure to establish that long-needed sense of security and support within the military community.
Let us move forward with this important legislation and reinforce our commitment to the welfare of our service members. In doing so, let us ensure that those who serve and their families are given the support that they so rightly deserve. Let us establish an armed forces commissioner so that we can better serve those who nobly serve our country.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
With Armistice Day just one week behind us, and with respect and admiration for veterans, service personnel and their families still fresh in the public consciousness, it is only fitting that we speak about a Bill that will improve the quality of life in service and ensure that our military personnel receive the respect and support that they deserve.
It is widely known that our armed forces face record levels of low morale and a crisis in recruitment and retention, with only four in 10 service members satisfied with a life in service—and who can blame them? In 2022, 163 service family accommodation homes were left without heating for over five days during the Christmas period, and only 27% of personnel were satisfied with maintenance responses. While most service family accommodation is officially rated as “decent”, independent reviews highlight serious issues, with many families enduring poor repairs. Our armed forces deserve better.
Addressing those issues is not a luxury but a necessity. It is simply unacceptable that in 2021 nearly 62% of female service personnel and veterans reported experiences of bullying, harassment, discrimination and, in rare cases, even worse. Those numbers speak for themselves, and our structures are not working. What measures will the Government use to evaluate the success of the armed forces commissioner in addressing welfare issues, and how will they ensure that personnel see tangible improvements in their day-to-day lives as a result? Will the commissioner have a role in overseeing the support provided to those who have served during their transition to civilian life to ensure that their welfare is not neglected? Our service personnel and their families continue to sacrifice in the name of our freedom, so it is only right that we provide them with the support and respect that they deserve.
The weekend before last, I attended a memorial service in my constituency of Dudley. I was proud to see how many people turned out to pay their respects and thank the servicemen and women, past and present, who have given so much to our country. In particular, I thank the people of the Lower Gornal Royal British Legion and the many dedicated veterans and volunteers who dutifully maintain our heritage, including those of All Saints church in Sedgley. As the people of Dudley pay their respects to our veterans and service personnel of the past, it is only right that we ensure that the right quality of service is given to the armed forces of the present.
The Bill, by creating the role of armed forces commissioner, provides us with a crucial opportunity to address those deep-seated issues. It is not just about improving conditions; it is also about fundamentally changing the culture within our armed forces. Our servicemen and women deserve nothing less than our respect, support and gratitude for all the support they have given us and the service they provide.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of these proposals for a number of reasons, but particularly because I come from a family who have public service, including military service, in our blood. A number of my family have served in the armed forces. Of particular note is my uncle, Clifford Berry, who served for more than 22 years in the Royal Engineers. That role saw him complete two tours in Northern Ireland, as well as a posting overseas in Germany and service in the Falkland Islands.
Support for our armed services is rooted in the DNA of my constituency too. In the north of South West Norfolk we are proud to host RAF Marham—home to the F-35 Lightning squadron—and 3,600 service personnel and their families. At the other end, just outside the constituency boundary, is RAF Honington in Suffolk, home to the RAF Regiment and the specialist counter-chemical, nuclear and biological weapons team. Although I admit that that base is physically located in Suffolk, it is in my hometown of Thetford that many of its personnel and their families are based. Recently, I was proud to grant them the freedom of the town. Nearby, we also have RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, which work alongside our friends and allies from the United States.
In the light of that interconnected patchwork of military personnel, it is little wonder that people in my constituency are so passionate and supportive of our armed services. During the lead-up to Remembrance Day, I was proud to support local volunteers from the Royal British Legion in collecting funds as part of the poppy appeal. As well as the important task of raising money, I was pleased to speak to so many people about why they wanted to support the RBL and about their personal connections to our armed forces. It was a truly honourable and enjoyable few hours, and my thanks go to Heather, a local RBL volunteer, for hosting me.
In my role as a local councillor, however, I have seen a different side to things. I have had to issue food bank vouchers to families of service personnel as they have struggled to make ends meet. I and fellow councillors have repeatedly had to complain about the state of military housing, and raised issues about mould and damp, which have impacted on family health. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) highlighted, military housing is all too often ageing, poorly insulated and not energy efficient, and as a result many families spend a disproportionate sum of money on heating their homes. In some parts of Norfolk they are paying £25 a day for their electricity because of poor insulation, and they are often given electric heaters, which offer no solution. Many of those homes provide a miserable existence in winter months, with draughts, cold floors, damp and mould.
It has occurred to me in recent months that our shared respect and support for our armed services are not adequately reflected in the systems designed to support them. I hope that the new commissioner will change that. As a number of Members have remarked, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. At the heart of our security are the men and women who serve and risk their lives in defence of our nation.
It is also worth mentioning how the erosion of our public services more generally over the past 14 years has been impacting on service personnel and their families. In my Downham Market constituency surgery, a serving member of the military recently told me about his son, who has additional needs. As a family, they were unable to find suitable education and so were forced to home-school their son. Dad was forced to work from home, and he was no longer deployable, which took a very skilled operative out of the service and meant an unwelcome pay cut for the family. I am proud that the Labour Government recognise the sacrifices made not only by those in uniform, but by their families.
The new commissioner, as a direct point of contact for serving personnel and, importantly, for their families, will be able to raise the full breadth of issues that impact on service life. The power to proactively investigate is important, as is the ability to access information and visit sites, because—believe me—seeing is believing when it comes to some of these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) captured this point brilliantly earlier. So often there is a culture of not wanting to speak out; of not wanting to rock the boat. I hear so many times that military families do not want to create a fuss. The independent aspect of this role is so important, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified further the independence of the commissioner. I am sure that would be of great interest to my constituents. Safeguarding whistleblowing is important.
The Bill is a big step forward, and I am very happy to support it on behalf of the residents of South West Norfolk.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Establishing an Armed Forces Commissioner will make a real difference to the military families I represent in the home of the British Army, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and welcome this important legislation. We have heard from across of the House about the tremendous debt we owe our armed forces. We feel that very deeply in Aldershot and Farnborough, as people from our community have served in every major conflict that our country has faced over the past 200 years.
The Bill is essentially about respect—showing respect to those serving and for the families who support them. This is about not just words, but deeds. The armed forces covenant is there to ensure that those who serve and their families are not disadvantaged by being part of our military community, but I have heard time and again, in countless conversations on doorsteps across my constituency, how forces families are often automatically on the back foot when they move on to a military estate in my community. A spouse shared with me last week how her three children have been allocated to three different primary schools within a seven-mile radius. How is she supposed to get all her children to school on time? That is an all-too-common experience for families in my constituency. Others have told me how they have tried to use their voice to speak up about shoddy accommodation that simply is not up to standard, but too many have been worn down and fatigued by the process, giving up hope that anything will ever change.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Councillor Nadia Martin, the armed forces champion for Rushmoor borough council. Nadia is a military spouse who has singlehandedly given a voice to so many serving families and veterans in our community. We have become a lot better at supporting our armed forces and veterans because of Nadia’s work, and our community owes her a huge amount of thanks.
However, for every case we know and hear about, many others go unspoken and unresolved, because people are too scared to speak out, for fear that it might harm their career or that of their partner. That is why we need an independent Armed Forces Commissioner; someone our forces can trust, and who can investigate, follow up, hold Government to account and be the guiding star for this place as we renew our nation’s contract with those who serve our country.
After a generation of our armed forces being neglected and run down by the Conservative Government, leaving morale at a record low, we desperately need to give hope to our serving personnel. My constituents do not want the earth; they just want the basic equipment that they need to be able to do their jobs, a good life for their families and a positive future when their time serving comes to an end. I hope that the Bill will move us closer to that, because if they are willing to fight for us, it is the very least that we can do.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I begin by reiterating that Conservative Members approach this Bill as critical friends, with a commitment to strengthening its impact for those who serve this country so bravely. This has been a good-quality debate, conducted in a notably bipartisan spirit. Another sub-theme has been the benign presence of a former Royal Marine mafia—they have been prevalent throughout the debate, from the Veterans Minister himself downwards. For the record, the Veterans Minister was present for the opening speeches, even though he was not allowed to contribute.
We have had a number of extremely good Back-Bench speeches, from the hon. Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and—last but not least—for Aldershot (Alex Baker), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).
I am particularly indebted to the hon. Member for Bracknell, who mentioned that he has the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in his constituency. In tonight’s debate, a number of tributes were paid by hon. Members who have relatives who serve in the armed forces. It is greatly to the House’s credit that we now have so many MPs who have either served in the armed forces, or have loved ones who do. My godson, Second Lieutenant Alexander Blackwell, passed out from the sovereign’s parade at RMA Sandhurst in August and is now a second lieutenant commissioned into the regular Army. I place on the record that I am as proud of him as all other hon. Members are of their family members.
We also had a very accomplished maiden speech from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Not only was she lucid and entertaining, but it was the first occasion in my 23 years in this place on which I have known anyone to get Dracula into a maiden speech—she really got her teeth into it. More seriously, she invoked the memory of our fallen comrade Jo Cox and quite rightly pointed to her plaque, which is on the wall behind me. Of course, Jo is famous for her suggestion that as Members of Parliament, we have more in common than divides us. That was absolutely the spirit of this evening’s very good debate.
At the core of this Bill, as I am sure the Minister will agree, lies a commitment to supporting our armed forces personnel. They deserve a system that not only honours their service, but ensures accountability and fairness in addressing their legitimate concerns. The Bill proposes a model similar to the German system, whereby the commissioner has what we might characterise as Ofsted-like powers, including the ability to enter military sites and access pertinent information for investigations. If executed correctly, this could enhance oversight, transparency and the lived experience of our servicemen and women, strengthening public confidence in how their issues are addressed. A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner with the right powers could be a powerful voice for our service personnel and veterans—I will come back to the topic of veterans—addressing their concerns fairly, transparently and promptly. We believe that this vision deserves cross-party support.
However, there are details in the Bill that we intend to examine closely. We must ensure that it truly delivers on its promises without adding unnecessary complexity to the existing oversight system. As we support the vision of the Bill, we also have a duty to scrutinise how this new role will be implemented, how it will integrate into the current framework, and its implications for those already navigating the armed forces complaints system. In short, the challenge for Ministers will be to convince armed forces personnel and their families that this new legislation will represent real change, and will not just mean replacing the nameplate outside the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a new one that says “Armed Forces Commissioner”. We support the vision, but the proof of the pudding really will be in the eating.
I have questions that I hope the Minister will address in his winding-up speech. First, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have concerns regarding the transition of cases outstanding with the Service Complaints Ombudsman, whose office will be abolished via clause 1. Some of those cases have been open for a considerable time, causing significant stress and frustration to those affected. Will the Minister explain what will happen to the many cases still outstanding with the current ombudsman? Will they be transferred automatically to the new commissioner? If so, what assurances can he give that the transition, which will follow Royal Assent, will not lead to further delays or the loss of critical information? Our service personnel deserve timely resolutions. Indeed, we must avoid any risk of cases slipping through the cracks during the handover. I hope he will accept that that is a perfectly legitimate concern.
Secondly, what is the timeline for establishing the new commissioner role? Do the Government expect to have the commissioner in place by the time the strategic defence review reports in the first half of next year? Some cynics are already suggesting that that will be in late June 2025. If we could have confirmation on the timeline, that would be helpful.
Thirdly, I come to financial questions. What will be the true cost of establishing and maintaining the commissioner? Paragraph 11(1) of proposed new schedule 14ZA to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states:
“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner.”
What budget has been allocated to the commissioner’s office for 2024-25? Will that come from the MOD’s budget or from the Cabinet Office? Wherever it comes from, how much money are we talking about? The figure of £5 million has been mentioned a couple of times this evening; I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. On the financial implications, how will that funding affect other essential services? As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, defence budgets are continually stretched.
Fourthly, another critical area on which we would like further clarity is the authority that the commissioner will hold. Will this individual have the autonomy needed to genuinely advocate for our forces without interference? That point was stressed by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), in his very good contribution. How will the commissioner interact with the Defence Committee? The Secretary of State confirmed in his opening remarks that the Defence Committee will be involved in the appointment process. Will it have a veto on a proposed appointee if, for whatever reason, it has concerns that they might not be suitable? It is crucial that the Bill brings about measurable change that is beneficial to our service personnel. The proposal in the Bill that thematic reports be laid before Parliament each year is welcomed by the Opposition.
Finally, as a number of hon. Members have asked, what about veterans? Clause 4 will amend the Armed Forces Act 2006 to allow the commissioner to investigate a
“general service welfare matter…which, in the Commissioner’s opinion…arises in connection with the ongoing service of persons subject to service law…or relevant family members.”
There is no direct reference to veterans, even though by definition they previously served in the armed forces, some of them for many years. Given that veterans also experience welfare issues—not least to do with the payment of pensions or outstanding claims from the armed forces compensation scheme—is there scope for allowing the new commissioner to take responsibility for examining those issues, too?
The Royal British Legion states in its very good briefing note on the Bill:
“RBL and Poppyscotland would like clarity on how the Armed Forces Commissioner will interact with the existing Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the proposed National Veterans’ Commissioner.”
When the Minister sums up, will he explain what the relationship will be between the new armed forces commissioner and the proposed national veterans commissioner? While he is at it, will he update us on the progress on the national veterans commissioner? On a related point, the well-respected Northern Ireland veterans commissioner Danny Kinahan resigned recently, for reasons that have not been made entirely clear. Will the Minister update the House on why he resigned, and what arrangements have been put in place for his replacement?
As I have outlined, the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill represents an opportunity to enhance the support and advocacy that we provide to our armed forces. There is potential for the Bill to address some of the most pressing issues facing service personnel today, and to offer essential accountability and transparency to those who sacrifice so much in the service of our nation. It is crucial that we get this right. We are committed to working with the Government to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise. We owe it to our armed forces to scrutinise the details thoroughly, so that this legislation does not become another layer of oversight that complicates the process, but rather provides streamlined and meaningful support.
By addressing the issues we have raised today—the transition of outstanding ombudsman cases, the urgency of the timeline, the potential costs, the commissioner’s authority and the scope of support for veterans—we can avoid pitfalls. As we move forward and the Bill enters Committee, we will continue to work constructively with the Government in, I hope, the same bipartisan spirit that the whole House has clearly embodied this evening, pushing for clarity and advocating for the changes needed to make this legislation as truly impactful as I am sure that the Government and the Minister intend it to be. Our forces deserve nothing less. We stand ready to collaborate on securing a fair, accountable and effective system that upholds the highest standards for those who are serving and who have served, and their families. We thank them for their service.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate. A number of Members spoke about the importance of this time of year. Last week, I was on the Falkland Islands to represent the Government and Falklands veterans from Plymouth, to lay a wreath at the war memorial that remembers the 255 members of UK armed forces who died in the 1982 conflict, and to lay a further wreath to remember the 49 members of our armed forces who have died subsequently in accidents and other incidents on the Falkland Islands. Remembrance is a special time of year. It is an opportunity for all of us, whatever our walk of life, to thank those who have served, to remember those people who never came home, and to offer our support to those people who came back forever changed. I am grateful to Members across the House for their participation in remembrance events, and the support they have shown to our armed forces and veterans community.
I am grateful to Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. It has been truly heartwarming to listen to speeches from all sides of the House about the passion and respect for, and dignity of, members of the armed forces. I will touch on a few of the questions asked, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Aldershot (Alex Baker). I also thank the Front-Bench spokespersons for their contributions: the hon. Members for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). That is a tour de force of our nations and regions, and we should all be proud of the way our armed forces are held in such regard across our country.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hogsmeade Station—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby—for her brilliant maiden speech and for her words about Jo Cox. Jo Cox inspired both in life and in death. I hope there will be many more brilliant women who follow in my hon. Friend’s footsteps and join her on these Benches because of the work Jo Cox inspired.
Members from across the House raised a number of issues. I will attempt, in summing up, to deal with a number of them, but if I do not cover them all, I would be grateful if Members could continue this debate, because the Bill is important. It is important that we get this right. It is important that we set the parameters for the Armed Forces Commissioner—the powers and the role they will have—and in particular stressing the impartiality and independence of the role. That is absolutely key.
I was struck by just how many Members began their speeches with an assessment of where we are now. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot described personnel as feeling worn down. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East described the significant shortfalls in recruitment and an exodus of skills and personnel in recent years, and he is correct to do so. A number of Members related that to the evidence the MOD collects in the continuous attitude surveys. The falling morale in the attitudes of our armed forces personnel really stand as a roll call of shame for the previous Government. It is not the fault of armed forces personnel, but a collective failure to address the issues that underpin service life. That is one of the reasons why this Government proposed an Armed Forces Commissioner and why we must get it right to provide a direct contact for our armed forces personnel and their families.
A number of Members spoke about the culture in our armed forces. The vast majority of people who serve our country do so with the right values and the right attitude, but there are far too many examples where that is not the case. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for raising the Atherton review. The report by Sarah Atherton in the previous Parliament should be compulsory reading for all Members of Parliament. I say to new Members who have joined us since the 2024 general election that it is well worth a google to understand the experience of so many women in our armed forces—it is worth having on your bedside table.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead spoke very passionately about bringing to justice perpetrators who act against the spirit of our armed forces and diminish the experience of service life for so many other people. He is correct to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar likewise spoke about the importance of lifting our culture. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner has been specifically designed so that they can investigate issues related to general service welfare matters for those who serve and their families. It is not for me as a Minister, or for the Secretary of State or anyone else on the Government Bench, to set out what the Armed Forces Commissioner should investigate. It is for us to give that person the powers and the ability to get to the heart of the problems.
I am grateful to all Members who very kindly gave the Front Bench words of advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View said it will not be easy reading the commissioner’s reports, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens described the Government as leaving themselves open to scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell spoke about the proof being in the pudding. They are all right to do so. We are deliberately opening ourselves to scrutiny because it will improve the lives of those people who serve and their families. It is a strength of this Government that we feel open to wanting additional scrutiny and I am grateful to Members who encouraged it. I further encourage Members to look at how these powers can be strengthened and scrutinised over the course of the Bill’s passage.
A number of Members spoke about the Bill’s application to veterans. I am grateful to all who spoke about the important contribution of those people who have served our armed forces and served our nations in years past. The Bill is deliberately drawn to focus relentlessly on armed forces personnel serving today and their families. That is not because we wish to discard the experiences of veterans; far from it. It is because we believe—looking at the continuous attitude surveys, the falling morale and more people leaving our armed forces than joining—there is a problem that needs to be addressed for those people who serve our nation.
The powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner are deliberately drawn to focus on those people who serve. It is explicit in the Bill that we are dealing with people who serve in uniform today and their families, and we make no apology for doing so. However, a number of issues have been raised in the debate, and I shall be grateful if those who have raised them continue to take them up with the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is keen for us not only to support veterans but, in particular, to look at the existing programmes and policies to ensure that they are worthwhile.
Jim Shannon
Many soldiers and other service personnel suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and may be reluctant to come forward and seek help, but the people who know them best are their families, who can do so on their behalf. That is the great thing about the Bill: it provides that opportunity.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is right about the important role that families play in supporting not just serving personnel but veterans. I am grateful to him for mentioning families, and to a number of other Members who spoke passionately about that important role that they play and the need for the commissioner to be open to representations from family members. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough, who spoke about bereaved families in an intervention during the Secretary of State’s speech. The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages. I am glad that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about kinship carers, and I should be happy to discuss them with her. We want to get this right, and putting such a definition in the Bill will enable it to be locked in. I want Members on both sides of the House to feel empowered to challenge us and help us to provide that definition, so that the Bill is drafted adequately to help serving personnel and their families to deal with service life—and that must include all the shapes and sizes of families as they exist today.
A number of Members mentioned the spending of 2.5% of GDP on defence, to which the Government are committed. The Bill states explicitly that the Armed Forces Commissioner will deal with general service welfare matters. I think it important for me to put that on record, because the commissioner will be dealing with the lived experience of those who serve and their families. This will not involve looking into “Secret Squirrel” operations or operational deployments, or the spending of 2.5%, 2.4% or any other figure; it will involve looking specifically at the welfare of those who serve. However, I realise that a number of Members want to make points about the 2.5%, and I will continue to encourage them to do so. I hope that they also welcome the extra £3 billion for defence that was announced in the Budget only a few weeks ago.
Several Members spoke about the armed forces covenant and this new Government’s manifesto commitment to putting it fully into law. I reassure them that the determination to do that is strong in the ministerial team. The Defence Secretary himself has made it clear that he wants it to be included in the armed forces Bill, which is the next piece of legislation on which the MOD will be working. I am grateful to the Members who spoke so passionately about the importance of the covenant in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Hartlepool in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View, spoke with passion about armed forces champions. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View and I share a brilliant armed forces champion in Councillor Pauline Murphy, and her determination and fierce approach to protecting and supporting the armed forces family are precisely what I hope to see in the Armed Forces Commissioner, because we need someone who will focus relentlessly on improving service life.
Mr Francois
When the Bill goes into Committee next month we shall be able to explore these issues in more detail, but—particularly for the benefit of the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland—will the Minister, before he sits down, update the House on what point we have reached in respect of the national veterans commissioner?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier suggestion that Members should take up their points with the Minister for Veterans and People, because this Bill is about serving personnel. However, I recognise the genuine concern felt by the organisations that he has mentioned, and I encourage him to speak to the Veterans Minister, who is currently looking at representation for veterans. I expect the commissioner to have relationships with a host of organisations across the country, and I am happy for that to be picked up.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked serious questions—as I believe did the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—about what will happen with a complaint being processed by the current Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces that is transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner. If it is a service complaint, and the complaint relates to a period of service and was raised within the time limit, the Armed Forces Commissioner will continue to investigate even if the complainant has left the forces. That is the same as the current SCOAF position. For new Armed Forces Commissioner investigations, it will be at the discretion of the commissioner whether to continue the investigation, bearing in mind that their investigations will be largely thematic, rather than picking up individual cases. I hope that reassures Members that the work will continue and any complaint currently being handled by the SCOAF will be continued.
That gives me a good opportunity to thank our current SCOAF, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work. The Bill is designed deliberately not to adjust the service complaints system. The opportunity to do so in legislation may exist in an armed forces Bill, and I am happy to speak to Members who have concerns about the legislation relating to service complaints so that we can make sure that any edits required are included in the next such Bill.
A number of Members asked who can raise a complaint with the Armed Forces Commissioner. I am pleased to confirm that whether someone is a regular, a reserve, a recruit or a re-joiner, they will be able to raise an issue with the commissioner, as will family members of those people, in relation to the commissioner’s investigation work. That relates to the rank and grade question. We expect everyone, especially within defence, to treat the Armed Forces Commissioner with respect. The Secretary of State will be required by law to assist the commissioner with their investigations, and the appointment process that we are seeking to start will be for a very senior appointment. I reassure colleagues that the commissioner will require security clearance at a high level, because of the visits that they may make to military establishments, and they will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Any investigation and anything they come across on their base visits will be held in the secrecy and at the classification that it deserves.
There were a number of questions about digital access. It will be up to the commissioner to decide how people will be able to raise an issue with them, rather than for us to specify it in the Bill, but I understand the issues that colleagues have raised and I would expect the commissioner to be fully accessible on various platforms, both digital and non-digital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked the devolution question. As this is a reserved matter, it is the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament to deal with it here. However, it is conceivable that the Armed Forces Commissioner may investigate an issue that is the responsibility of the Westminster Government in England but is devolved to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, we anticipate that the Armed Forces Commissioner would engage with devolved Assemblies and Administrations, and I would expect a relationship to be formed between them over time so that any issues could be addressed fully. The legislation will be for the MOD to apply, and reports will ultimately flow through the House of Commons Defence Committee, but I recognise what my hon. Friend said and I hope that, through the operation of the Bill, that will be developed.
I am really grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for joining me in one of my nerdy pursuits in defence legislation and asking why Gibraltar is not covered. As a former Defence Minister, he will know that the reason Gibraltar is often excluded from defence legislation, separate from other overseas territories, is that it has an agreement with the United Kingdom to replicate the Armed Forces Act in its own legislation, but serving personnel and their families stationed in Gibraltar should be in no doubt that they will be able to access the Armed Forces Commissioner. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that clause 6(1) clearly sets out that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, all members of our United Kingdom family of nations.
A number of colleagues mentioned the commissioner’s budget. The budget has been modelled on input from the German model. That is why we are proposing an increase from the current SCOAF budget to £4.5 million to £5.5 million. The shadow Minister wondered why that figure arose a few times in the debate. If he turns to page 12 of the explanatory notes, he will see that it says “£4.5 - £5.5m”. I suspect that is the reason why so many Members raised the figure, but it will be for the commissioner to determine how many staff they wish to employ, in what roles and how the budget is allocated.
The Chair of the Defence Committee asked how the Bill sits with our broader strategy for our armed forces personnel. This is our first step in our work of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. It is exactly right, as was mentioned earlier, that it forms only one part of what we have announced. The wraparound childcare announcement that the Secretary of State made at the weekend is a good example of the direction of travel that people serving in our armed forces should expect from this Government: a clear direction that says we will look not only at the kit, capabilities and doctrine in the strategic defence review, but at the lived experience for each and every one who serves, to see how we can improve it. That relates to the broader strategy about how we can measure success—not only in terms of the lived experience improvements and the additional scrutiny of such issues, but the opportunity for us to do that.
I may disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North on where the home of the Royal Navy is, as I represent Devonport in Plymouth, but I am grateful for all the contributions. Finally, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who summed up the debate very well when she said that armed forces personnel
“just want the basic equipment that they need to be able to do their jobs and a good life for their families…because if they are willing to fight for us, it is the very least that we can do.”
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2024.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jeff Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jeff Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
We will first consider the programme motion as on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions for the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally, without debate. Date Time Witness Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 9.55 am Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 10.40 am Royal British Legion; Help for Heroes Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 11.25 am SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; COBSEO, the Confederation of Service Charities Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 2.20 pm Defence Medical Welfare Service Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 3.10 pm Army Benevolent Fund; Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity; Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 4 pm Army Families Federation; Naval Families Association; RAF Families Federation Tuesday 10 December Until no later than 4.20 pm Ministry of Defence
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday10 December meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 8; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 December.—(Luke Pollard.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Luke Pollard.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Luke Pollard.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Committee deliberated in private.
Examination of Witness
Mariette Hughes gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start to hear from our witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill?
The Chair
I think we can forgive you for that; thank you. We will now hear oral evidence from Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings of the programme order that we agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. Will the witness introduce herself for the record and say a few words?
Mariette Hughes: Good morning; thank you for having me here. I am Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces. I am pleased to be here to talk about the Bill, which is a positive and important piece of legislation. I am happy to answer any and all questions.
The Chair
A lot of Members are unused to Bill Committees, so if you want to speak, put up your hand in good time, the Clerk will let me know and we will get everyone in. I call Mark Francois.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: My remit is extremely narrow. It does what it needs to do in providing oversight of the service complaints system, but it restricts me and those who work in my office to looking only at issues related to service complaints—those complaints that have been through the system and applications that have been made directly to my office.
We know that one issue is that not enough people complain. Between the number of people who report that they experience poor behaviours or unacceptable things in the workplace and the number of people who complain and come through to my office is a huge delta. We are not able to look into the reasons why. The ability to look behind those issues raised as pure service complaints is incredibly advantageous.
For me, there is also an element of being able to look at the further level of “So what?” Too many times when we look at a service complaint, we are considering whether the individual has been wronged because of whether or not a policy has been applied correctly to them, and that is as far as our analysis can go. What the Bill will provide is the ability to go behind that to say, “Does this policy provide the best for our service personnel in terms of their welfare?” Those are the key issues for me.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: Yes, absolutely. When I last spoke in front of the Defence Committee, we mentioned that we would like those powers, and my predecessor had asked for them as well. We were told previously that until we got our backlog and performance sorted, they would not be able to be extended to us, but that is the direction we have been pushing in. We have been asking for them for years, and we would be very excited about it.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: I say this with a pinch of salt because I have not logged on this morning to check whether we have had any new applications, but the backlog is zero. We have around 30 cases in active investigation. Any new cases coming into my office are instantly allocated out. We have brought the backlog down to nothing, and we are at 100% timeliness.
Mr Francois
Q
Mariette Hughes: Thank you. It has been very important to us. When I took on the role, the wait time for individuals to have their cases looked at by me was around nine months. When we are the organisation holding the services to account for how swiftly they deal with complaints, that does not fly very well. If we are going to be the champion of what good looks like, we have to be able to demonstrate that we can apply those lessons to ourselves to make the services trust us, so I am pleased that we have been able to do that over the last three years.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: One of my main concerns is ensuring a smooth transition. My staff are quite excited for the new remit. Again, we as an organisation have been pushing for it for a while, but naturally there is consternation and a bit of anxiety about what it means for them. Broadly under the scope of the legislation, if the powers and functions of the ombudsman are simply lifting and shifting to the commissioner role, I anticipate that the majority of my staff will continue operating as usual.
It is key for us that we do not disrupt the good work that has been happening. A lot of my staff have been at the organisation longer than I have, and they remember when the backlog was even worse. They are the ones who have done the work and delivered that performance. It would be absolutely devastating for them to see it disrupted, so ensuring that they have somewhere to operate from, have clear legislation, understand what they are able to do and can just continue as usual will be key.
The other element to be considered is the other side of our business—those who look after our finance, IT and stats. Their roles will potentially need to expand to cover more under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, and that is what needs to be established through a transitionary period.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mariette Hughes: That depends on the speed at which the legislation goes through and the plans—I noticed that there is an amendment on setting a proposed timeframe. Depending on when you want the office to go live, there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like. Certain roles will be needed ahead of others, and for certain roles, current staff at SCOAF will simply be able to pick up some of the work. We have staff in our organisation who were working for us at the point of transitioning from the commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so they have done this process and will be able to guide it through.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. It is all about collaborative working. There will certainly be areas where the commissioner cannot reach in and touch—or have control over—the provisions for service personnel, but it is about maintaining those good relationships. We are all trying to do the best for people, so it is about ensuring that we have those sensible conversations and everyone understands one another’s remits, and that we are able to bring issues to the fore and talk about them as we go. We are already doing some really good work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on uniformed protective services and behaviours. That is the sort of work I see expanding with this, and with the devolved Administrations we just sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I am not entirely sure I can answer that one for you. We have approached it from two different paths that have converged at a very convenient time. I am aware that the new Government have been pushing this very hard and that it is something they feel very strongly about. I am certainly in favour of it. Separately to that, within the ombudsman community there is a lot of talk about own motion powers and thematic investigations. I think there are only one or two other schemes in the UK that currently have those powers. This is game-changing for everyone. We have been talking about this since I came into role.
When we set up our new five-year strategic objectives, one was around changing our performance, one was around changing the relationship with the services, and the third one was around looking at the strategic and political landscape and how we need to be fixed. What powers do we need to be able to effect real change for service personnel? This has been part of our ongoing conversations for around five years.
Amanda Martin
Q
Mariette Hughes: Trust and confidence in the service complaints system is something that we have been driving hard as SCOAF, and that work would continue. This is what I think is interesting about the commissioner role. When we do outreach visits, I sit down and do focus groups with service personnel, where I kick all the chain of command out of the room and get them to tell me what they actually feel and experience. What is really interesting for me is that in those conversations, a number of issues, frustrations, grumbles and gripes are raised, and they are not the sorts of things that normally become service complaints, because to the individual they do not feel big enough or they do not feel that they have been personally wronged—it is just part and parcel of their service life—or they do not think that raising a service complaint will change it. We have those conversations because it relates to service complaints. It talks about that mental resilience, the things they are putting up with that chip away and then lead them to situations where they feel they have to complain.
Under the commissioner’s powers, you would be able to raise those issues and put those into reports that can be laid in the House and brought into the light—all the issues that people are telling us about, such as their accommodation or concerns around food or policies that affect their families. At the moment, I am gathering that information as good background for service complaints, but the commissioner role would be able to take that forward and say, “This is affecting all three services” or “Actually, it is affecting this service more than the other.” So this really rich information will help promote those welfare things that currently do not have enough light shining on them.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Can I ask for your views on the German armed forces commissioner? Obviously, this measure has been modelled on that.
Mariette Hughes: You can, of course. I know Dr Eva Högl quite well. We are both members of the International Conference of Ombuds Institutions for the Armed Forces, which is a mouthful, so I will say ICOAF. We have a conference every year. She is an absolutely incredible person and has done really good things with that office. It is an interesting model for this to be based on. There are some differences that we have to be alive to. The key one for me—apologies if this comes up later—is around the terminology. Dr Högl is the Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Germany does not have a fully established ombudsman scheme in the same way that the UK does. We have 22 established schemes under the Ombudsman Association. On Eva’s website, she describes herself as “the ombudsman for the armed forces”. It is simply that the title “parliamentary commissioner” fits with their legal framework.
There are also some interesting differences. Eva has had these powers for a long time and uses them very well. However, she does not have the oversight of service complaints that I have, so this would be an extended remit compared with the German model. It is brilliant to draw inspiration from it. Being members of those communities together, we are always looking at best practice in other countries. There are necessarily some differences in this country, but it is certainly a good starting point.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think we have to build our own model; we have to look at what our key issues are. Germany is a different landscape and a different framework and has been operating for a huge number of years. We cannot just pick it up and start doing things the way they do. We need to start with what our key focuses are and how we think we can have the most impact and scale up operations, and go from that.
We might end up looking at things slightly differently. A lot of Dr Högl’s focus is on investment in defence and pushing for bigger budgets. Does that necessarily tie in with what we are seeing about the welfare of service personnel? There may be issues that cross over into that, but we would have a slightly different focus from the German parliamentary commissioner.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Mariette Hughes: For me, the best thing from the German model that I would like us to learn from and take forward is the voice that Dr Högl has within the German Parliament. She has a permanent seat; she sits in all the sessions. I am not saying that the commissioner should have that, but they should certainly have the ability to lay reports directly or have them laid in the House so that more focus is placed on this. There is absolutely no point having all this access and information and creating the reports if they do not go anywhere and nobody talks about them. That level of parliamentary oversight and visibility is what we should mirror from the German system.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I am also a board member of the Ombudsman Association. You will not be surprised to know that my views align very closely with those of the chair of the Ombudsman Association. I understand why we are using the word “commissioner”, based on the fact that we were mirroring the German system, but as set out in the letter from the chair, the Cabinet guidance is very clear that “ombudsman” is the gold standard.
As I have mentioned, we have 22 established schemes; we have a very wide network of ombudsmen. Within my office, we have spent a lot of time trying to get people to understand the value of an ombudsman, what it is and what it does. Having been the service complaints commissioner previously, I worry that going back towards “commissioner”—going from service complaints commissioner to service complaints ombudsman to armed forces commissioner—is a step back. It feels like if we are doing that, is the next step not armed forces ombudsman? Do we not just go there straightaway?
Pam Cox
Q
Mariette Hughes: The Cabinet Office guidance simply says that if you do not meet the standards for independence, impartiality, integrity and fairness, you cannot use the term “ombudsman”. There is an inherent elevation to “ombudsman”. There are no real prescriptive powers for what an ombudsman can or cannot do compared with a commissioner; it is all broadly set out in the legislation or the rules that govern. Each ombudsman scheme in the UK, whether they are statutory or voluntary ombudsman schemes, have different powers and remits. It is broadly what you make of it. It is about the gravitas of that term and the understanding in the wider landscape of what “ombudsman” means. We as the UK have accepted that an ombudsman is the top tier of fairness and oversight. Unless there are overriding reasons, I simply do not understand why we would use the term “commissioner” instead of “ombudsman”.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
Mariette Hughes: Under the Bill as drafted, the remit is very wide. The key thing will be the secondary legislation—the regulations and schedules that cover exactly what the work looks like. It is also key that the individual sets out what their focus is and where they want to focus the work. There is a danger of thinking this is a magic silver bullet that will fix everything. You simply cannot fix everything, and even with the power to go where you like and look at what you like, you must have that focus on what is key to welfare.
The initial first year would involve a lot of scoping around, “What do we already know, what do we think we can fix, and what do we wish we knew?” We would focus on that within the broad categories set out in the Bill, but this is about welfare, not about going into all the back rooms and looking at all the sneaky files and exciting buttons just because we can. We must always ask the questions, “Why am I looking at this, what do I think I am going to achieve, and how will this make life better for service personnel?” It is very wide, and it will need to be set out in regulations how that is to be directed, but I would not want to constrain the individual in deciding what they need to look at, based on their experience.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Mariette Hughes: If I am allowed to apply. As the ombudsman, I can do only one term, but obviously this is a new role. If it is decided that I am allowed to put myself forward for the job, I would love to be considered for it. I love what I do, I feel very passionate about it, and these are the powers we have been asking for. It would also provide the opportunity to ensure that the work of SCOAF, which we have got to a really good standard, can continue uninterrupted, while then focusing on, “What does this look like, how can we take it forward, and how can we make this work?”
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
One of the key provisions for the Armed Forces Commissioner is their independence. In my mind, if they are not regarded as independent, it will not work in enabling people to raise concerns and issues with them. Could you talk us through how independence works in your current role, and how you feel an Armed Forces Commissioner independent from Government, Ministers and the chain of command might operate on a day-to-day basis?
Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. The key point is that independence does not mean you are completely isolated, or that you cannot talk to Ministers and work collaboratively. It is about having an unfettered ability to decide how your work is shaped. When I took on the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a key thing we always got asked, particularly on social media or in questions and queries about our services, was, “How are you maintaining independence? You are funded by the Ministry of Defence. You must therefore be in MOD’s pocket and none of your decisions is actually independent.” All ombudsmen face this, because we have to be funded from somewhere and it is usually the sector that we are overseeing. It is not an unusual thing.
One of our key priorities was setting out to the public, in a way that people could understand, how we maintain that independence. We designed a governance framework, which, to be honest, I was quite shocked that we did not have already when I took on the role. That has now been laid out to the House, and it sets out publicly that although the Ministry of Defence will provide my funding, it is not allowed to touch my cases, design my business plan, or tell me what I can and cannot do in pursuing the aims set out within the remit of my role. I would expect something similar with the commissioner, setting out who has the power to do what. It will need to be set out that although they report to the Secretary of State and are funded by Defence, they are entirely independent in the decision making.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: Currently, we do not assess national security. We are overseeing just the service complaints system, which is about personnel issues—the issues service personnel face in the workplace. We naturally have a few cases where information is redacted because it is sensitive, because of the nature of where that individual works, and we work very well with the services on deciding what should and can be redacted. In a report where we are just talking about someone’s workplace experience, they should probably not be putting in information that needs to be redacted.
Going forward with the commissioner role, if the focus remains on welfare, I do not think it is as much of an issue as it might be. I understand the concern, because the Bill is so wide and gives those powers, but again, I cannot really see a situation in which the commissioner would need to get that involved in those issues, if that makes sense.
Luke Pollard
Q
Mariette Hughes: The framework proposed in this Bill is significantly stronger than what is currently in existence with my office. I have similar provisions in my terms and conditions that if for any reason I am unable to fulfil my functions, the Secretary of State can terminate my employment; equally, I can give notice. What is not in the current legislation or in my terms and conditions is the ability to appoint a deputy or an acting person to fill that role. That is a very real risk and it is a gap.
When I took on the role, there was actually a gap between myself and my predecessor during which nobody in the office could do any work, because there is no power unless it is delegated directly from the ombudsman and there is no power for the Secretary of State to put in an interim. There was a small period when nothing could happen. That is a real risk. At the moment, if I get hit by a bus—touch wood—and cannot come into work, there is nothing in the legislation that allows my staff to continue working unless I am there to delegate that power. The Bill allows for the commissioner to appoint a deputy, to delegate specific functions, and, in the event of incapacity or their being unfit to do the job, to be removed from post and an acting commissioner to be put in place. That gives us a lot more security than what we have currently, and I am in favour of it.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it will allow people who are experiencing an issue that affects a wider group or a demographic to bring forward that complaint as a whole. There is a lot of onus in service complaints on the resolution of individual grievances. You cannot bring a group complaint; it has to be an individual’s complaint with a named respondent. We are doing as much as we can to make sure that that system does not feel onerous, combative or scary, but some people are simply not comfortable putting their name down and saying, “I want to complain about my employer because of this.”
This new role has a wider focus on welfare, so you could form really good links with some of the networks to say, “Okay, when people come to you for advice, what are the things they are worried about? What are the things they are scared about? What policies are affecting them?” If those people are still not comfortable raising individual complaints, we need to ask what issues they are facing and whether we can cast a light on them. I want everyone to feel safe to come forward, but equally, if we know there are problems, it should not take the individual coming forward. If we know there are problems, we should be able to go and shine the light on it for them, so that they do not need to do that.
Juliet Campbell
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it is key to look at the front end of complaints. By the time things come to us, they have been all the way through the process, they are still unhappy with it and they are asking us to fix it. It is really important that we can fulfil that function, but the thing that went wrong for that individual happened maybe 12 months ago, so we have to see what people are coming to welfare for, what people are coming to the networks for, and what people are using “Speak Out” and the “Call it Out” hub for. When people are saying, “I am seeing certain behaviours and I’m having an issue,” where can we get the sources of data to look into it? It will be really important for the commissioner to try to get ahead of some of those issues. It is really important that, when things go wrong, people can use the formal system, but ideally I would like to stop them going wrong, to be able to look at where the hotspots are and to really focus welfare work on them.
The Chair
We have to finish at 9.55 am, but do you want to ask a very quick question, Amanda Martin? You have one minute.
Amanda Martin
Q
Mariette Hughes: I think it absolutely will be a good thing. The Bill pitches it right: such individuals will be able to raise concerns but, as I understand it, the intention is to form a secondary service complaints system for them all to go through. Essentially, those relevant family members are people we expect to live in certain conditions; there are various aspects of service life that apply to them, that they simply have to live by and that affect everything they do, but they are not subject to service law so they cannot come into the system. Understanding how that affects them and how we are providing for the family members of those who serve us and protect us is really important. It also gets around that problem where individuals might not want to raise a complaint because it will go on their record; their spouse might be able to put it forward for them, and say, “They would never say this to you, but this is really affecting our family and I am worried.”
We also have the issue where we know that people still do not like to talk about their emotions or about what is affecting them. It is their family members and the people around them who see clearer than anyone what is happening and when there is a concern. Giving them an avenue to put their hand up and say, “Look, I think we need a bit of help here,” or, “I think you need to look at this issue,” is absolutely brilliant.
The Chair
Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee. We will now move to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Angela Kitching and Ted Arnold gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Ted Arnold, senior public affairs and policy manager for Help for Heroes, and Angela Kitching, director of campaigns, policy and research for the Royal British Legion. For this panel we have until 10.40 am. Could the panel introduce themselves?
Angela Kitching: Thank you for inviting us to give evidence. I am Angela Kitching, the campaigns, policy and research director for the Royal British Legion. We have been holding focus groups on the Bill with members of the armed forces community and their families—those who are currently serving—to see what their views are. Some of the interesting points that we would like to draw out today are around how we can measure the impact of the role, and what the proper balance is between thematic and individual complaints, given the new scope of the role. We would also like to explore the question of relevant family members and who will be able to raise complaints.
Ted Arnold: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. My name is Ted Arnold, and I am the senior policy and public affairs manager at Help for Heroes. We are a veterans’ charity, supporting veterans and their families and I will very much be making comments from that perspective. We very much welcome the Bill and we see the key underlying principle as calling for a more transparent culture to make it harder for Defence to hide embedded problems. That is a conversation that we want very much to be a part of. We believe the veteran community has substantial insights to offer to that conversation, as we seek to improve the lives of serving personnel who one day will become veterans themselves.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: As colleagues will know, the covenant is the promise that the Government make on behalf of the nation to those who serve and who have served, their families and the bereaved. I think the role of the commissioner can help to give that some teeth. Hopefully, the way that the welfare remit is written will go beyond the current legal duties under the covenant and will allow the commissioner to consider thematic issues where service personnel and their families face significant problems.
I hope that in places where the covenant does not have legal force, such as Northern Ireland, the commissioner will be able to bring parties together and co-ordinate a proper response from local authorities or national Governments to improve the experience of service personnel and their families.
I particularly want us to think about the position of the bereaved, who are often not well considered in terms of the covenant. They are one of the groups of people who are supposed to be given special consideration under the covenant, yet they are often missed out when local authorities and others plan their services related to the covenant. I hope that, through the definition of “relevant family members”, the commissioner will be able to bring to the fore some of the experiences of the bereaved community.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: If the powers transfer as they are at the moment, veterans who have experienced a problem in service and raised that through the service complaints system will, we hope, be able to continue to pursue their individual cases. We would like clarity on that point, because I feel it was not well explained on Second Reading.
In terms of the commissioner’s relationships, it is really important that they think about their relationships with the veterans commissioners and the veterans advisory and pensions groups that exist around the country. If Haythornthwaite is to be properly implemented, it is going to be a spectrum of service where people pass from serving into reserve and into veteran, and back again, so it will be really important to spot the themes to make sure that we have a group of people in the armed forces community who can rely on the knowledge that they will be well treated when they are in a serving scenario.
Mr Francois
Q
Angela Kitching: Yes. You will be aware that that was an open advert and people were being invited to apply just prior to the election. We have not yet heard an update on what will happen to that role. We think it is really important that there is a national veterans commissioner, as described. Clearly, the Armed Forces Commissioner will have a wider, deeper and better resourced role than any of the other commissioners. I think a lot could be learned, particularly from the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, because they report directly to Parliament. The Armed Forces Commissioner can look to that community of commissioners regularly to make sure that they pick up issues as people are leaving service.
Mr Francois
Q
What is Help for Heroes’ perspective on some of the veterans’ issues that I have just put to the RBL, please?
Ted Arnold: To build on what Angela said, in our experience, and from what we are told, the military works well and looks after its own until there is a problem in service, be it injury or illness, when it often closes ranks, withholds vital information, or provides inconsistent or varied support.
The last part of the mantra, “Join well, serve well, leave well”, is often an afterthought, particularly for the wounded, injured and sick. Very much a key message from our beneficiaries relates to that variability, inconsistency and uncertainty during their service, and particularly at the point of discharge and building up to transition. For instance, the German model has looked at the issues of transition out of service, and how those policies and procedures would impact personnel post service. Veterans can probably talk with greater openness about their experiences with their service, with the benefit of distance and hindsight, to really crack some of those issues open. The Minister was right to point out on Second Reading that the agencies and services in place are very different for veterans, and it is important to make that distinction, but a lot of these issues stem from the point of discharge or transition.
One issue on which we have been working closely with the Veterans Minister is the call for an independent review into the medical discharge process. We believe that the policies and processes are very much there but are followed inconsistently across the three services, or not followed properly by the chain of command. Building on the other thematic reviews, in regard to issues such as welfare more broadly, leadership style or elements of training, kit or housing, we believe that we hold a wealth of experience, and a wealth of data and evidence, from that community that we would very much like to build into those thematic reviews.
Mr Francois
Q
Ted Arnold: I think we would broadly say something similar. It is a postcode lottery in terms of support and how the covenant is applied, and there are inconsistencies with the armed forces champions. Some areas are very good—they have some density of serving personnel or veterans, and they are very aligned with some of those issues—and others less so. That seeps into the whole culture, and it touches on a previous point made by the ombudsman about having someone else to advocate on your behalf on those issues, be it getting the right welfare support or getting the right healthcare support. For many, the armed forces champion is seen as that point, but others have to draw on family and the charity sector to get access to the support that they need.
Graeme Downie
Q
In subsection (3) of that new section, do we feel that a “relevant family member” is correctly drawn? Further down, subsection (7) of the new section states that the Secretary of State will give the commissioner “reasonable assistance”. From the focus groups and the work you have done with your members, is there a feeling that that is the correct terminology? Will that capture everything that they feel the commissioner needs to be involved in, or is there any work that can be done to broaden or tighten some of those definitions?
Angela Kitching: I will do my best with that technical question. I think welfare is a well understood term in the armed forces community. Calling out particular experiences of discrimination, bullying and harassment is useful, because that is not held to be a welfare issue; it is held to be an employment and discrimination issue. On that one, that feels appropriate.
The second part that you raised was about a relevant family member. That really does need significant further exploration in Committee, and further definition. I understand that the Government intend to publish regulations when the Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords, but understanding what a “relevant family member” is has been a really disputed point in the armed forces community. For example, the bereaved parents of people who have lost their service person often feel that they are not included in the world of the armed forces community, and it is the same for the siblings of those who are bereaved. The families of non-UK personnel who are not resident in the UK also often feel outside the environment. The issue is about understanding who a relevant family member is, and being open to the fact that that person could raise relevant information.
Establishing really clearly whether somebody can raise a complaint or a concern—three terms are being used, “complaint”, “concern” and “issue”—and getting clarity over who is allowed to do what is extremely important, because otherwise it will unduly raise people’s expectations that they will be able to follow something through in a formal process, when what they are being invited to do is offer additional information for a thematic review. We need absolute clarity in the way that is communicated to the armed forces community—who has right to a complaint versus who is able to raise a concern or issue more broadly.
The only other thing I would mention is that the process will be everything. I was surprised by the focus groups: we thought that we would collect information about issues that people were likely to want to raise with the commissioner if their scope were broadened, but what people wanted to talk about was how safe they would feel in the process—would they be prepared to raise something, would they be able to do it jointly as the commissioner just raised, would family members feel that they were able to raise concerns and would it affect their person’s career progression or ability to continue to make progress?
There is a high level of distrust in certain areas of current service complaints, for example service-to-type complaints, where people are making accommodation complaints. At the moment, there is already a three-stage process that has to be closed before someone is able to approach the ombudsman. The middle section of that process is so overwhelmed at the moment that people are getting standard messages to say, “We are not able to progress your complaint on the current timelines.” That in itself would be a reason for somebody to be allowed to go to the ombudsman, but they will already have been through an extensive paperwork process to try to pursue their individual complaint before they get to the stage where the commissioner is reviewing the process.
It is getting the balance of expectation right for individuals who are serving and their family members of whether this is likely to be effective and get faster, or whether thematic reviews would be a better place to put their efforts if they have a broader based complaint such as an accommodation issue.
Graeme Downie
Q
“in the Commissioner’s opinion…may materially affect the welfare”.
Is the concern that that word choice creates the possibility almost of a bottleneck being artificially created?
Angela Kitching: There is a very broad invitation in new section 340IA in clause 4(3), which states:
“The Commissioner must consider any request made by a person subject to service law or a relevant family member to carry out an investigation under this section.”
That is a very broad funnel, which is helpful, but the question of how material the impact is on the individual could be the point at which it narrows. It is the question of the clarity of the process. If yours is not the issue that is taken forward from an individual complaint into a thematic review, how will you feel about that? Will you feel that your concerns are being dismissed or that you need to get together many more people to make a similar complaint? There will need to be a high degree of transparency about the decision-making in order for that to feel appropriate.
Graeme Downie
Q
Ted Arnold: To build on the RBL’s point in its briefing, it is vital that the commissioner is seen as independent. There is certainly a lot they can draw on from the experience of those independent veterans commissioners throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, it is hoped, soon in England too. They bring valuable knowledge and insight and act as a voice for veterans in the entire armed forces community throughout the UK.
We would certainly encourage that co-ordination between the two agencies, particularly around data and evidence sharing—not just with the veterans commissioners, but other agencies such as the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the defence transition services and organisations in the charitable sector. It is important that the work of commissioners is communicated and integrated as clearly as possible with other veterans agencies. That builds on the ombudsman’s point that those key relationships should be built and the right thematic reviews carried out.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Q
Angela Kitching: Obviously, there are family members—and, from our point of view as a charity, we have a definition of beneficiary that would mean that there was a degree of dependency between the family member and the person who had served, or the serving person, or somebody who is bereaved of somebody who was in service.
In the real world, though, there is often a much wider group of people who feel most relevant to the person who was serving. That could well be the household that they came into service from; it could be the family that they left behind when they came from another country to serve on our behalf; it could be their grown-up children; or it could be the group of people who immediately surround them and offer them support.
The issue is about trying to make sure that, as you are peeling back the layers of the onion, it is the people who are closest to the person who are serving, but not just their immediate household. If you think about the person who they live with, it might be much more relevant to also think about their parents. At the moment, a large number of non-ranking people in service are typically passing through service between the ages of 18 and 30, so they often do not have other immediate spousal relationships. It is their parents or grandparents, whose household they have come out of, who are closest to them.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Yes; and it is about where somebody can offer relevant information to the matter under consideration. It is about how much relevant information they could have. However, it is worth thinking about how to challenge the commissioner’s outreach into countries that a person has come from—where that information might be held, for example. Unless there is an active outreach into those immediate relationships, I think people naturally think, “Well, I am not in country and therefore I won’t be able to offer my views on this process.”
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Some of the issues that Ted has raised about discharge are massively important throughout somebody’s career. How somebody leaves the armed forces is crucial to their ongoing experience in life.
In terms of what people raised during our focus group sessions, housing issues are key. Good transition around housing makes a huge difference. Healthcare and education access for family members is a hugely important issue. If you look at the families continuous attitudes survey and the armed forces continuous attitudes survey, the two main opinion-based surveys, issues around family and the extent to which family have access to outside services are key concerns of serving personnel. I understand that those issues will not directly be in the purview of the commissioner but, as part of building relationships, decent healthcare access at discharge, support for family members in accessing local services, and housing are the three things that I would really focus on.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: Independence is really key. It is really important for personnel to able to see that the chain of command are listening and taking action as a result of the commissioner’s report. To be honest, the key thing is that the reports are seen to have impact—they should be reporting not just on the flow of cases and the themes that have come out but on what has happened as a result. That is really the issue at the moment, I feel: people can see that their individual complaints have got so far but cannot see whether there was a wider impact on the system or whether anything was changed as a result. I am hoping that the parliamentary element will add that additional layer of transparency and trust.
One other thing: people talked about being able to raise concerns anonymously, understanding that that meant they would not then personally get feedback on what had happened. But they were very keen on a system that would allow them to raise those concerns, in the manner of Crimestoppers—when you can give information in detail but that does not come directly come back to you as the person who raised it.
Helen Maguire
Q
Angela Kitching: I have not considered that directly. I understand that there is consideration of the extension of the covenant in law. It is really important that we do not tie ourselves to the current legal definition, which is much more limited in the policy areas that it looks at. But anything that demonstrates that the covenant is the promise that the nation makes would be really useful. Among employers, in the healthcare system and in local authorities, it is beginning to be the golden thread that runs through the promise that is made. Anything we can do to strengthen that will be helpful, but I would not want it to be too limited by the current narrow definition of the covenant in law.
David Reed
I thank Angela and Ted for being here today. The title of the role is changing from “ombudsman” to “commissioner”. We previously heard that different perceptions come with those different titles. Do you think that moving to “commissioner” is a good change? If not, where are the limitations?
Angela Kitching: I think it is helpful because it indicates a move from a system that reviews the administration of an appropriate action in relation to individual complaints into a wider and more thematic system. For me, that signals that we are not in a situation where the system is only going to be following through individual complaints and that wider representations can be made. It sounds more like the action of the Children’s Commissioner, for example.
I completely understand concerns that the ombudsman groups would have about the fact that, outside the courts, “ombudsman” is the highest way of considering individual complaints. But as long as it is well communicated within the community that the new role and office are capable of doing both, I do not have particular concerns about the change in title.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, the change is to set expectations and make very clear to the community what the new role is and the new powers will be. Angela spoke about trying to influence a cultural shift to make people feel comfortable about going to the new commissioner and take forward not just grievances but other issues up and down the chain of command—best practice, for example.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Angela Kitching: At the moment, if you look at evidence from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, they say that the impact of service life on their families, the opportunities that they have outside of service and the amount of pay they have are the things that are currently undermining morale. For family members, it is their experiences of living a service life, so you can see that there is an obvious potential for this role to try to improve that experience.
It is helpful to think about not just the individual complaints, but those wider welfare issues that chip away at people’s experiences of their time in service. The No. 1 reason given by service people for leaving is the impact on family and personal life, so anything we can do to improve that has got to help with the broader morale issue.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, persistent issues with the current complaints system have deepened that dissatisfaction with service life. If we look at the various reviews—Haythornthwaite, Etherton, Atherton, Lyons and those that the Defence Committee has carried out over the years—attempts have been made to address concerns with morale or certain groups. The commissioner could bring a much more robust approach to addressing some of those problems. We envisage, as does the Bill, trying to involve the commissioner in day-to-day military life so that there is a real granular understanding of what those issues are.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Ted Arnold: Again, I think that will be difficult to measure. Having an annual review that reports to Parliament, and perhaps the community making observations—not just on thematic reviews, but in the annual report as well, in a similar way as we do as a sector to the covenant—would be an appropriate way of measuring progress.
Angela Kitching: How you measure the impact of the thematic reports is crucial to that. After that annual report, you would then need to think, “Okay, what did we see that changed as a result?”. At that point, I suspect that you will see an impact on morale, with people feeling the difference because there will be something to point to. It is also about the mechanism for the commissioner to follow up on recommendations from previous reports and look at change over time.
There needs to be an adequate capacity in the office for them to have access to data that allows them to track the change over time as a result of it—I note that an amendment has been tabled on this today—particularly for groups whose experience might otherwise be invisible. Those groups are very small percentages of people, such as LGBT personnel, women in particular branches of the armed forces, and the experience of non-UK personnel, but otherwise they would end up being subsumed into the whole. It is important, as in the German reports, that some of those experiences are drawn out in the annual report and we track change over time for particular groups, who otherwise end up being lost in the wider picture.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: What people mentioned to us when we spoke to them in groups was that they needed to understand who the commissioner was. They needed to understand their relationship with the existing welfare services in the individual branches, but also with the wider service complaints process. Knowing exactly what to expect from them was really important, as was their office being seen to be open, both for serving personnel and their family members, so that they could make a direct approach and not feel as though they had to chase through another system to be allowed to approach that person. Also important was that the person was prepared to visit, which obviously is the case for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman.
The digital access is a real issue currently, as you will be aware, on areas of our Defence estate, but also where people are operationally deployed or are struggling to get access to enough technology to allow them to engage with complex digital systems. What they did not want was something where they would have to log in to understand the ongoing process of what was happening. They needed somebody who could be reached via a variety of different sources and, as I have previously mentioned, something that would allow for transparency and a degree of anonymity, if they wanted it, in relation to thematic information, so that they were able to offer what evidence they had, even if they did not want to pursue it as an individual complaint themselves.
Particular attention needs to be given to experiences of bullying, harassment and discrimination. In any other service that we look at that deals with those complaints, people have a significant amount of protection when those are being considered. If, for example, a thematic review were to be opened into an issue that touched on bullying, intimidation or harassment, particular consideration would need to be given to how that evidence was collected, because people understandably feel very vulnerable about offering that evidence. The armed forces is a unique employer in that way, because it is not just a job, it is a life, and the life of your family, and it can potentially control your future career. The level of trust needs to be built because the level of exposure and risk is so high if somebody chooses to step out of line and raise something.
Ted Arnold: To build on that, I think an effort must be made to change the current culture to encourage individuals and people on their behalf to know that they can come to a commissioner. Building on the German model, that is not just to raise issues of grievance, but maybe the spectrum of duty-related issues, and not just those problems, but personal and social problems as well.
Luke Pollard
Q
Angela Kitching: When we have gathered evidence before, particularly on sensitive issues, often we have allowed people to speak openly to us with a very clear and ethical statement about how we are going to use that information, which they previously agreed to. There is certainly the potential for us to be able to pass on that information on behalf of armed forces groups. We did that in relation to the Etherton report when people did not want to give individual evidence and did not want to step forward themselves. We gathered those views and submitted them to the review team on behalf of people who did not want to identify themselves. There is potentially a role for organisations—not just us, but many others—to do that. Thinking about the location of those conversations is really important. They cannot be on bases; they need to be in an environment where people feel comfortable to express themselves.
Overall it is the assurance that the office of the commissioner has a degree of separation from chain of command that is the most important thing. Ensuring that the office has adequate resources to be able to do the kind of work that I have just described will be important, and trying to make sure that that person is able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently independent of the current chain of command, and are really able to bring forward views that will very difficult for chain of command to hear, is important.
Ted Arnold: Also, it is important for chain of command to feel that they are comfortable raising those issues as well, knowing that it is going to the Secretary of State and being considered by Parliament.
That also builds on and adds to the importance of the commissioner drawing upon data and evidence from the veterans’ community, particularly those who have been recently discharged. For some, it takes many years for them to get help and to reach that crisis point—to have those reflections and be able to say what could have been done better during their service. The removal over time—being away from your service and not fearing repercussions, particularly in terms of your career, can add to that. As Angela said, the Etherton review was a great example.
Pam Cox
Q
Angela Kitching: I think it is really important to lay out from the start what the intended change is. When we are asking the commissioner to report, it needs to be a report that looks at the intended impact and then tries to measure against that. It cannot just be a report of activity.
I also think that, as the commissioner opens thematic reviews, they need to make sure that they invite evidence from organisations, academics and others who have depth of experience in some of the best ways to address some of those issues, and looking at the change that could be achieved over time. Many of them are well-trodden paths as research issues either in this country or internationally. They need to be looking at what works and addressing some of the concerns—that evidence is readily available, and we need to make sure that the commissioner is on the front foot in drawing that in.
In terms of Parliament, as soon as reports are laid in Parliament, we obviously do our best to try to make sure that they are well communicated in the community, but it is very difficult to reach into somebody’s service life. They are in the middle of their job, as you will have experienced, and their head is on the job. It is about making sure that they are well networked in the armed forces community. The armed forces champions who were mentioned would be one way of making sure that the wider system understands the changes that are necessary. Armed forces liaison officers, who are Government-appointed in Wales, are a good model for people whose role it is to reach into communities and are additionally resourced to do that, unlike the armed forces roles in local authorities and the NHS, which are usually voluntary. It is about being well networked in the existing armed forces communications structures.
There is also something about the in-service welfare system, which, as Ted mentioned, can be incredibly patchy in the way that it delivers outcomes for people. I think there is probably a duty there that thinks about how better we can require the in-service welfare system to consider changes that come out of the commissioner’s office, perhaps requiring them to write back to say, “This is the impact and this is what has changed as a result of it.”
I am afraid that the way to do it is probably all of those methods at once.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you very much to our witnesses. We will go on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory KBE CB DL and Lieutenant General Sir Nicholas Pope KCB CBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity, and Lieutenant General Sir Nicholas Pope, chair of the Confederation of Service Charities. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Could our witnesses introduce themselves, perhaps saying a bit about themselves and what they do?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Good morning, sirs and ma’ams. I am Andrew Gregory. I spent 35 years in the Royal Artillery in the British Army. My last three years were as Chief of Defence People in the Ministry of Defence—very much looking at these sorts of areas —during which the Service Complaints Commissioner became the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so I have seen some of the transition. I left the military in 2016 and have been the controller and chief executive of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity since then. I am also a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Nick Pope. I know some members of the Committee. I was an Army officer for 39 years—I am struck by this witness panel’s age compared with the previous panel’s. I finished in my job as effectively the Army’s second in command, so I dealt with the likes of Mariette and Nicola from the Service Complaints Ombudsman from a single-service perspective. As the Army’s 2IC, I was the principal personnel officer for the Army. I left the Army in 2019 and am now chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, Cobseo. A couple of years ago, I also helped Rick Haythornthwaite to produce the Haythornthwaite review of the armed forces community, which was probably the first time in a generation that we had had a systemic look at the people function for the armed forces. So I sit here in three guises to answer your questions.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I must start by commending you for the “Filling the Ranks” report, which I have mentioned here before, and which was one of our opportunities to look at the way we carry out armed forces recruitment. I still go back to that report and read it by my bedside table.
We believe there are currently around 1,735 military service charities. Some people would say, “Golly, that’s an awful lot,” but we are the one percenters—there are 160,000 charities in the UK and about 1,700 military service charities. The first thing to say is that whether that is too much or too little is irrelevant, because each charity is answerable through its board and trustees to the Charity Commission. We are not stuck with the number, because it changes, but that is the number of charities.
All charities are not the same. Of that number, a vast swathe is focused on heritage, museums and monuments, or service funds—ship stations and aircraft stations. About 500 really cover welfare and benevolence—the kinds of military charity organisations you would typically think of. Of the 500, about 25 raise about 90% of the money. If you are going to focus on money and impact at the national level, the likes of Andrew in SSAFA, the Royal British Legion or Help for Heroes are the typical charities you would think of.
That is not to decry the enormous contribution made by smaller charities. At local level, a fantastic amount of work is done, if you are thinking of a drop-in centre or breakfast club—a means of bringing together veterans, particularly for comradeship and belonging—but my point is that the word “charity” covers a smorgasbord of activities.
In the sector, we tend to slice and dice in how we bring our charities together through what are known as clusters or communities of interest, where like-minded charities come together to talk about, for example, mental health, housing or employment or issues affecting non-UK or female personnel, so we use the charity sector to think thematically about issues. Sectorally, we have an executive committee that Andrew sits on, alongside 16 other chief executives—it is like a United Nations council—where we try to garner the systemic issues across the sector. It is right to say that there is not a sector view, but what the sector can do is bring together information to say, “These are the kinds of views that exist across the military charity sector.”
It is probably also fair to say that the sector focuses not exclusively but predominantly on the veterans community, albeit some charities also link back into serving personnel. We tend not to think about either veterans or serving personnel; we try to use the nomenclature of “the armed forces community”, because it picks up the bereaved, spouses, dependants—the entire gamut of those who exist in that community. At the broadest, you might say that around 6 million or 7 million people, so gusting 10% of the UK population, have some relationship with the armed forces. That is a large number.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I am well aware, having read the Second Reading Hansard scripts, that most of the issues I cover will not be unfamiliar to you all. The sector welcomes the Bill and it welcomes the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner. As we approach the selection of the commissioner and further determination of the scope, we will be looking to pick up on some of the issues you have talked about with regard to independence and the boundary between the armed forces serving community and those who have served. We are interested in the ambit and the responsibilities of the commissioner function. From a selfish, sectoral perspective, we are also interested in the way in which we as a stakeholder will engage with the commissioner. Those are the kinds of activities that we are looking at.
Mr Francois
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: First, for those who do not know, I will highlight that SSAFA is just coming up to 140 years old. It was formed in 1885 as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Families Association. Although Nick says that military charities have mainly focused on the veterans community, we actually do a lot of work in the serving community in many different ways. I will not expand on that now.
Like Nick, I have read the Hansard report. Initially, I was concerned that the commissioner would potentially undermine the chain of command, but I am not concerned any more. I have had a good session with the Minister for the Armed Forces—we both have—and I am reassured on that. The challenge, as Nick has talked about, is that there is a continuum running from before people join the armed forces to when they are thinking about it, to their first day of service, through their service, to their departure and to their subsequent life. Trying to state that the commissioner will look at only the time when people are subject to military law, regular and reservist, will be quite difficult. You cannot divorce some of the consequences of military service from welfare issues within and during military service.
I want to go back to Haythornthwaite and some of the propositions being considered as part of the defence review, particularly the people proposition. The review is quite rightly looking at what we are choosing to call one defence—people in uniform, full and part time, people not in uniform, full and part time, or people delivering to defence outputs. That is absolutely right. That is exactly the model that should be used, but potentially the commissioners will look at only a part of that ability to deliver defence outputs. My only concern is that the commissioner should be looking at how best to sustain defence outputs. The person is tasked to look at welfare issues. I worry that there are some artificial divides that may not help the person do their work.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Thank you very much.
Terry Jermy
Prior to my current role, I was a local councillor for a number of years. I worked with SSAFA to encourage people to come forward, first of all to raise an issue, but more often to formalise the issue. Encouraging people to go through that process was quite a barrier. Do you think these proposals will encourage people to be prepared to raise and formalise issues?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: That is a great question. Your previous session discussed how to generate trust. I thought that was a good question too because this person must be trusted. They have to be sufficiently trusted by the chain of command, but equally trusted by the community, to fairly champion their views without, when appropriate, revealing their identity. The challenge we find with many service personnel, particularly veterans, is that they are often too proud to admit they are finding life difficult, perhaps while they are serving and often once they have left the military. They do not want to admit they are a charity case.
Going back to the question of trust, this commissioner is going to have to work hard to say, “I really am here for you. I am here to champion your issues in whatever way we feel is collectively appropriate.” They will also have to work hard to ensure that the chain of command does not get defensive, but instead sees this as an opportunity. I was not serving when Mariette Hughes was the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but when Nicola Williams was doing the job we talked regularly. I was effectively on one side as the policy lead in the Ministry of Defence and she was on the other side. Success to me would have been more complaints. For those of you who have not met Nicola, she is a very approachable person, but trying to get people to have the confidence to step forward, to go to her and say, “This ain’t fair,” was really difficult. The intent is good and I support it, but I think building confidence will continue to be a challenge.
Terry Jermy
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I heard the answers given by the previous panel. I am relaxed about this. What is in a word? We use “veteran” to pick up smorgasbord of individuals. We use “service” for the sector indivisibly. Moving from ombudsman to commissioner does, I suppose, demonstrate a shift in a position. If we use a word from a communications perspective, to get people to think differently, there is utility in that. Having spoken to Mariette about this, although I do not want to put words into her mouth, I suspect she feels she is prescribed in some of her activities by the way that her job has been set up. In moving to “commissioner” we have a chance to think about seeing the new post through a different prism and communicating that well, both to the current armed forces serving community and to those who are to come.
If I may go slightly off-piste, the average tenure of somebody who is serving is about seven years. In that time, most individuals will graze through without ever coming across the ombudsman. Looking forward, one of our challenges—probably a challenge both for the commissioner’s post and for the wraparound of the Department—is to ensure that young men and women who join in the future recognise that function and the idea of a champion who sits outwith the chain of command and gives them a chance to have their voice heard. Thinking about generation Z and beyond, in an area in which agency at the individual level is increasingly important, that matters.
David Reed
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: What we have to be very careful about, in relation to the commissioner’s role, is ensuring that we do not chase demons unnecessarily. I love the phrase, the bumper sticker, that underpins the armed forces covenant:
“a thriving Armed Forces community that is valued and supported within our society.”
It has five key points: thriving, armed forces community, value, support and society. Some 97% or 98% of the young men and women who go through service have a fantastic time and come out with additional skills, valued by the individual, valued by organisations that employ them, and valued by society for having served. As for support, in my territory, in the charity sector and in some of the statutory service provision, it is about catching those who need support and getting them back to being thriving members of society.
There is a danger that by concentrating on the areas of damage, harm and complaint, we will not have the context in which we see people thrive. Why is that important? It is because we want young men and women to join the armed forces in the future. They have to recognise that there is value in so doing and that service benefits not only the nation but also themselves as individuals. That is the area in which we need to capture the context, I suppose.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I completely agree. We need as a nation to better promote the narrative that service in the armed forces is good for people, it makes great people; that it does not damage the majority, and there are systems to pick up those who are damaged.
I do not see the commissioner as a threat. As I said earlier, that did worry me previously. Nick and I have both been commanding officers. When I was a commanding officer, who could the soldiers and officers go to if they wanted to talk to somebody outside the chain of command? They could go to the padre, the doctor, and perhaps the welfare officer, but particularly the padre and the doctor because they were independent. The padre or doctor would have to get the trust of those individuals because often the solution was within the remit of the chain of command. They had to get those individuals’ trust so that they could say, “I would like to go back to the commanding officer with this, and then we can see how we can work through it.” For some, that was a tricky hurdle to overcome.
What the Service Complaints Ombudsman has provided, and what the commissioner will provide, is something at a higher level. I know it is simplistic, but it is not dissimilar to those people who can pick up individual and systemic themes that are affecting people. The chain of command has got to get used to it. The role is not that of a federation or a union, which would have been very different and very dangerous in my view. I do not see it as that. It is an opportunity to improve life and to improve trust on both sides. I really mean that.
David Reed
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Service people are intelligent people and they will make an appropriate judgment. The commissioner will need quite a lot of support to manage two quite different things: the individual issues that will percolate up to that person, and the systemic themes they want to investigate, such as poor-quality housing or whatever issues it happens to be. The commissioner and his or her office will challenge Ministers in Parliament with their reports.
As goes communicating to young servicepeople, you now have a separate opportunity. You have someone who will pick up your issues and run with them for you. I think people will get that actually, I really do. I understand that there is a fine balance here, but if intelligent commanders at various levels see issues that really are to the detriment of their people, they will start to have a conversation. People will have to judge it very carefully with this commissioner, but I can see that happening.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would like to tier the answer to this question into political ambition, policy formulation, service delivery and lived experience. You will be looking to the Armed Forces Commissioner to tap into all those areas. On the point that Andrew brings up about lived experience, one of the aspects of the commissioner’s work will be direct interventions with individuals who raise issues that concern them. That is fine and necessary. Part of the commissioner’s function is about dealing with individuals at their individual level.
The next issue, to bring it to the service delivery level, is about whether the system that the Ministry of Defence has set up is sufficient to deal systemically with some of the issues that individuals bring to the commissioner’s attention. That takes you back into policy formulation. To what extent are the current policies—the service complaints system, for example—designed to be efficient, effective and fair? Do we need to look at the policies as well?
The final level becomes a political choice, I suspect. Thinking about the accommodation, we know the answer to this already. We know that service families accommodation and single-living accommodation is not where we would like it to be, but within a finite budget are there political choices to start to address these issues more systemically? The commissioner’s function will tap into each of those four tiers of activity.
I suspect that we will look these things with the commissioner when the commissioner’s report is laid before Parliament. Having the report laid before Parliament and having the opportunity at parliamentary level to debate the report feeds back into the MOD. To what extent will the recommendations that the commissioner makes be manifested in demonstrable changes in the way that the Department thinks? I think about the last eight Service Complaints Commissioner and Service Complaints Ombudsman reports: all of them have said that the system is not effective, efficient and fair, QED, so is the report driving the change in the Department that we seek?
Amanda Martin
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In terms of resources, the honest answer is, how long is a piece of string? Would one always like more? Possibly. Assuming the Bill is approved by Parliament, the Government will want to see the first commissioner given a fair chance to succeed. Once that person is in situ and has looked at the scale of the job, they will challenge the Secretary of State for Defence in particular. Given the ability of the commissioner to go back to Parliament, he or she could then say, “I can’t do my job.” I think there will be an appropriate balance struck.
In terms of this business of gaining trust, once again— I agree with the earlier answers from Mariette and others—it is down to the person to really project themselves, to get out, to be seen on the ground and to talk to the various parts of the community. That is how it is going to work. So in the first year, this person will spend an awful lot of time doing that.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would add that I think the figures in the paper are based on analysis from compatriots in Germany and build on the current SCOAF function, so there is a logic to them. Whether we in the Department choose to expand or contract is probably an issue for three or four years hence.
I really buy the idea of trust. The word I would use is “culture”. I will be interested to see how the commissioner starts to pick at some of the issues we have regularly seen through the Wigston report, the Lyons report, the Atherton report and so on, to start to get at the cultural issues and move towards a more inclusive armed forces.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: If I could come back for a second bite at the cherry, the other challenge is seeing through recommendations, which does worry me. I have been part of the armed forces covenant reference group almost since it was established in 2010. As part of that, the Secretary of State is tasked to put a report before Parliament each year. Some of the themes are consistent in all those reports—I think that is the polite way of putting it.
How do we make sure that recommendations made by the commissioner are either addressed or properly answered? It goes back to the question of resources for service family accommodation and single living accommodation. We cannot do it at the moment, but we will go on a journey to improve life for families in that way. That is one of the things that worries me, because these things have their moment in court—their moment in Parliament—and then we move on and forget them.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: You are absolutely right. We are all part of the armed forces but we are quite different as tribes, and then within the Army we have sub-tribes called regiments, and they are pretty different too, each with its own traditions and culture, and things like that. Then you have the Brigade of Gurkhas, with which Nick has served very closely, and which has a wonderful tradition and history. How do you capture all that? We do it within SSAFA. We support the whole community. How do we do it? We take the case of each person and each family on its merits. We support 2,000 Gurkha families each year. The support we provide to them is quite different from the support we provide to some of our other beneficiaries.
I am flannelling a bit but, to answer your question, I think the commissioner will need to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the armed forces so that he or she understands the various components of how they live their lives. As I am sure many of you know, Navy personnel have traditionally lived their lives—this is a generalisation—in different ways from the Army. The Navy serviceperson goes to sea and their family stays static, perhaps around Portsmouth, Faslane, Devonport or near their own family. The Army has traditionally had more camp followers, and families have moved as the regiment has moved. That means it is very different, and it puts different pressures on both the serviceperson and their family. The commissioner will have to get his or her head around that.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: The needs of people who come to us are absolutely changing. I have been the chief exec of SSAFA for eight-and-a-bit years, and we have seen a significant change even during that time. The people coming to us are younger, and not just because the world war two and national service generation are slowly passing on, sadly. More working-age veterans are coming to us, and there are more complicated, multifaceted issues. I say that one or more of the d’s has gone wrong in their lives: drink, debt, drugs, divorce, depression, domestic violence, a dependency culture, digs or housing, disease, death, or disability. It will not be all of them—I will test you on them later—but it will be more than one.
To take it back to your first question, our people are taking each case on its merits and looking at it. The commissioner will need to understand that, in terms of service families and service personnel, the cases will be different, and he or she will have to pick that up.
Helen Maguire
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: If the commissioner is going to be shining a light on the current welfare conditions of the armed forces community, in a way that enables Parliament to have the evidence for a sensible discussion about the way in which the Ministry conducts its business and makes its choices—about resource allocation, policy formulation and service delivery—then, to have proper teeth, I would want to see, within three, four or five years, some tangible changes in either resource allocations or the metrics that are coming back through the commissioner to Parliament. Unless we see that, there will be no real impact or effect out of creating the post. To get real teeth, we have to have the feedback loop that Andrew talked about, in a way that matters.
Graeme Downie
Q
To pick up on something you mentioned earlier, SSAFA has been around for a very long time, so what do you see as some of the thematic issues that have existed with forces personnel over the years? Where do you think the commissioner should be looking first? Are there two or three things from those thematic areas that they could look at?
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I will come to your question. There is an interesting discussion going on. The Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, has commissioned Operation Valour, which is great—both Nick and I have engaged with that—to look at how better we can support veterans. I do worry that we have bits looking at veterans and bits looking at servicepeople and their families, working slightly in isolation. I come back to the point about the continuum: for veterans, setting the conditions in service for success outside is absolutely critical.
In terms of themes and areas that the commissioner might wish to focus on, there are some obvious ones, such as the issue of service accommodation. In defence, during my time, we started off with something called the future accommodation model, which then became the new accommodation model. What is the current term?
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Accommodation offer.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Trying to get something that meets the aspirations of modern servicemen and women and their families has proven quite difficult. So I think that will be an area.
I am very proud of my service. People say, “What would have made you leave early?” I would answer, “Had the services ever compromised on their values and standards.” But I do think there are some cultural areas of shame in the armed forces, and how better we can tackle some of those issues would be another area that the commissioner would certainly wish to look at relatively early in their tenure.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will go back to Haythornthwaite to answer the question. One of the pieces of evidence that we put in the report was about how over time the role of the family has changed, and how family conditions drive individual aspects. I was struck when I took Rick down to visit some of the Blades in Poole. We had a table like this one, with 25 members of the Special Boat Service sitting around it, and the question I posed to them was, “Who is going to be here in five years?” Not one hand went up, so I said, “That’s shocking. Why?” The reasons were family-based: time away from Christmases, accommodation standards and the inability to get spousal employment. The issues that matter are focused on spouses. If we have a commissioner who focuses on one area to make a difference, that should be spousal employment.
I remember, about 10 years ago, taking the decision to bring the Army out of Germany, and selling it to the then Secretary of State, Phil Hammond, as a savings measure, because it was a lot cheaper to have the UK Army based in the UK—for the first time in 300 years. The reason we took the decision as an army was predominantly around the lack of spousal employment opportunities in Germany, to be brutally frank. Yes, there was a change in the geostrategic landscape, but we could not get enough young men—particularly men—to want to serve in Germany because it was going to impact on dual-income families. Spousal employment and opportunities and looking at family conditions would be an area I hope we could unpack in a big way.
Graeme Downie
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: That is a great question. I hope the commissioner would, in that space, want to work to support the chain of command. I think the chain of command is trying desperately to get it right— I would say that of when I served. Nobody likes the awful headlines we have had over suicides. Obviously the biggest issue ever was Deepcut, but there have been plenty of examples where those of us who are part of the military community have hung our heads in shame, as we should have, because that is not how young people should be treated.
The chain of command is not complacent; it is doing its best. You need someone who is there to say, “Right, I am going to challenge you,” which the commissioner must do, but equally to say, “I am going to support you, because we are all collectively on a journey to make this part of society and employment better.”
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Can I add a little codicil to that?
Graeme Downie
Q
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will start with the codicil, if I may, which goes back to my beaten record about context. The suicide report is a good example. The report on suicide in the Armed Forces community said that in every sector with young men aged 18 to 24, the Armed Forces were better than UK society. The headline in the paper at the weekend said that young men in the Army aged 18 to 24 are at equal risk as the population to suicide or damage. The commissioner needs the ability to say what it is about the service that is a prophylactic activity. One is too many, but by golly we are doing well.
The Chair
May I interrupt you? We are running out of time, so will the Minister ask his questions?
Luke Pollard
Q
Wearing the hats from your previous roles, can I ask you to think about the unannounced visits power in the Bill? One of the bits that I feel strongly about is the ability of the commissioner to visit any base in the UK unannounced to look at general service-welfare matters. First, could you talk us through the effect that the commissioner having that power would have on how our military would address general service welfare matters in the broadest sense? Whether used or not, it would be a power that the commissioner had in their toolbox.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: There are probably two aspects to that. First, if this works well, units should embrace the perception of challenge that comes with an unannounced visit. If you are a unit that is functioning effectively, you should have no worries about it. If you are a unit that is hiding cultural issues, good—you are going to be found out.
If it is an issue about systemic stuff like housing or accommodation, it will be well known. Your ability in the chain of command to address some of these issues is rather circumscribed, but I hope you would welcome the chance to give evidence to the commissioner and say, “Look at the mould on the walls. Look at the living accommodation. It is provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which is outwith my control. Please help me to try to make improvements for the young men and women under my command.” I hope people would start to welcome it. The optics of the commissioner coming out to do his or her job are fantastic and will act as a real catalyst for change.
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I would support that entirely. If you have something to hide, you should be worried. If you do not have something to hide, you should be proud of your unit, garrison or base and welcome the commissioner coming to look at some of the wider issues.
Luke Pollard
Q
Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In SSAFA, we have deliberately chosen not to be a lobbying organisation. We work with officials in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in the Ministry of Defence. We feel that is our best role. Other charities do a great job in that space—in particular, I commend the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride, of which I am proud to be the patron. There is a debate on Thursday about some of these issues.
We will not change. Thank you for the compliments about SSAFA. We will continue to work to support serving personnel, veterans and their families. We will not change our position.
Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: We in the sector have two or three ways of interacting with the commissioner. First, during the generation of a report, I suspect that we as a community will build up a relationship with the commissioner, particularly through the serving UK personnel cluster, so charities with an interest in the serving communities will engage in that fashion.
When a report is laid before Parliament, and when we have looked at the annual covenant report, the Committees tend to come back to the charities for a session such as this to ask our opinions. I suspect that that kind of opportunity will again be of use, particularly with charities that have skin in the game and focus on the serving community.
The Chair
I think we have to stop it there; otherwise, we will not finish on time. Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 10th December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 December 2024 - (10 Dec 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Abby Dryden, CEO of the Defence Medical Welfare Service. We have until 2.20 pm for this panel. Before I ask Abby to introduce herself, are there any declarations of interest?
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme.
Examination of Witness
Abby Dryden gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Abby Dryden: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Abby Dryden. I am the chief executive of the Defence Medical Welfare Service.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Q
Abby Dryden: I have had time to consider the Library paper and look at the Bill, and the position of my organisation, DMWS, is that if there is anything the commissioner could add to the positive experience individuals have of military service, we are supportive of that. We do not really maintain a position on existing service provision; we are quite neutral in our view in general. Our main interest is welfare delivery for service personnel in secondary care settings. If the commissioner was able to support some of the issues we identify and create a situation where armed forces personnel felt better supported, or there was increased or enhanced support for them in those settings, we would be supportive. Beyond that, I do not think we have a particular view one way or the other on the Bill itself.
Mr Francois
Q
Abby Dryden: Since 2018, we have collected detailed evidence on the experience that armed forces personnel have while they are in secondary care settings. We normally monitor the themes and trends that are identified by the people we work closely with. We identify about 10 trends each year, and we look at how we, as an organisation, and our funders can better understand how military personnel can be supported. In terms of the trends that we have identified, we usually find topics such as receiving care that is understanding of the unique position that armed forces personnel can find themselves in, the settings in which they receive care, and understanding that it is a highly mobile population.
We often deal with people who have complex family arrangements or children with special educational needs, for example, and military personnel who are quite badly injured. In those circumstances, it is important to understand that service life is a hugely positive experience for many people, but there are certain times when an enhanced service provision would be beneficial. That could be when admissions to hospital take place or when there is an increased pressure on the family as a whole. In terms of understanding how armed forces personnel could be better supported, that would be very useful. What would also be useful for armed forces personnel is an understanding that creating a positive narrative—or mentioning some of the positives of service life—is important, as much as it is important to identify the negatives.
Mr Francois
Q
We are all constituency MPs here, so we all know how difficult it can be. It is not a partisan point at all. Has there been any progress on that issue at all over the past couple of years, and if not, is it an issue that we should raise on Thursday?
Abby Dryden: I think progress has been made, but there is a need for awareness of the fact that we are dealing with a highly mobile population, which is restricted by procedural requirements. Again, it is probably similar to some of the issues that we deal with in relation to care and treatment for certain medical conditions, which might be at the top of lists, then fall down to the bottom again when families change location. I would say that yes, generally, progress has been made in a moderate fashion. However, a lot of the time, there is nothing that helps people dealing with different bodies, such as NHS trusts or local authorities, which should be talking to one another in a meaningful way and identifying that progress has been made in one area—for example, that an achievement of a special educational needs status has been identified—and porting it over to another area. There is progress to be made.
In our organisation, the welfare officers work predominantly with serving personnel, and a big part of what they do is maintaining the momentum for the family and their progress through systems and processes, in both NHS and educational settings.
Mr Francois
One of the fundamental principles of the armed forces covenant is that there should be no disadvantage as a result of service.
Abby Dryden: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Francois
If you are saying that the situation has got a bit better, that is encouraging, but I think you are also implying that there is more work to be done. We might want to explore that on Thursday under the “General service welfare” part of the Bill.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: I do not have any specific concerns about that. I would generally have concerns about any change in process, as the shortcomings of a process can sometimes be identified quite easily, but it can be quite difficult to create something in its place that functions effectively from the start. I would just be concerned about the transition, but I would not have any specific concerns.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Abby Dryden: Numerous things are probably needed to ensure success. I cannot comment on those things directly, as I do not have enough experience to comment reasonably.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Abby Dryden: Any process we have to support the raising of complaints would usually occur, and usually quite effectively occur, through the existing chain of command. In the 12 years that I have worked for the Defence Medical Welfare Service, I have not been involved in an issue where we have been required to go to the ombudsman. In that sense, you could say that the current system is working reasonably effectively. Equally, you could say that there are probably issues that require further identification or require the system to be more easily accessible, but usually the kinds of issues we deal with are things that can be resolved by the chain of command, which has a vested interest in resolving issues presented to us for its personnel and is keen to do so.
David Reed
Q
Abby Dryden: Part of our contract with the Ministry of Defence states that we work closely with the chain of command but are independent of the chain of command. I would not say that we are specialists in guiding a family through potentially making a complaint, but we are specialists in understanding the delicate and conflicting interests that might be at work in some of the situations that we deal with. If we feel there is a need to refer beyond the chain of command, or outside it, we have a process for that. Our internal management structure scrutinises that on a monthly and six-monthly basis.
David Reed
Q
Abby Dryden: I think it will be a different process, and we will obviously have to consider revising it, but I do not think our viewpoint and our purpose in very many of the issues we deal with will change significantly.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: I would hope so. The arrangements in the devolved nations, particularly in my experience of healthcare, are different, and it is about being conversant and fully aware of how it works in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a call for a nuanced and different understanding that supports some of the issues that present when personnel move to another devolved nation or another area of the United Kingdom.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Q
Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy.
In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Abby Dryden: Lots of services are very much centred around the serving person. That is not a failing of those services, but I think families can sometimes, but not always, feel peripheral to proceedings. I think—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Abby Dryden: Just to say that with families and the commissioner, putting families of all kinds at the centre of everything that goes on is key. The notion of family has changed significantly, so it is about making sure that there is an inclusive understanding of what a family might constitute. For non-UK serving personnel it is important as well.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Q
Abby Dryden: We do that on a regular basis. As for referrals to other charities, there is the Army Families Federation, the Naval Families Federation—that type of organisation—as well as specialist organisations for health conditions or for things that are specific to the individual that we have assessed might be of benefit to them. We also refer to legal advice if we feel that that is something they are asking us to provide them with. That is a regular thing that we undertake organisationally.
David Reed
I have a close family member who works for one of the charities here today.
The Chair
Okay. I am sure that has covered you. For the record, could all the witnesses please introduce themselves?
Col. Darren Doherty: I am Darren Doherty. I am the director of grants and welfare at the Army Benevolent Fund and am representing the Army Benevolent Fund here today. I am a former—well, I have to keep checking myself. I am not a former Army officer; I am still an Army officer. I have just completed 38 years of regular service with the Army and I was reminded just last Friday that I have a reserve liability for the next few years, so I am still part of that organisation as well. I have been in this role with the Army Benevolent Fund since 1 November.
Mandy Harding: Good afternoon. My name is Mandy Harding, and I am head of commissioned grants at the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Simon Harper. I am director of grants, services and programmes for the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and have been since March 2023; I am effectively responsible for the charitable output of the benevolent fund. Prior to that, I served for 34 years in the Royal Air Force and for two years before that in the Royal Navy.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: We have rebranded now. The old terminology of ABF The Soldiers’ Charity was what we used for a number of years until last year. We have rebranded again, at a very low cost. It did not cost us very much. We did not go through any hugely expensive marketing routine to do it, but we are now the Army Benevolent Fund.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: That is correct.
Mr Francois
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: It is not an area of expertise for me. I think the provision of pensions and advice on pensions—this is from my personal experience of having just gone through it—is adequate, with the support of great institutions such as the Forces Pension Society as an additional advising actor. I am not sure that it is something that would require specifically laying out in the Bill. That is my own opinion.
Mr Francois
Q
Can we switch to the Royal Air Force, please? Air Commodore Harper, you are probably too young to remember, sir, but in the cold war there was what was called the tactical evaluation process, or TACEVAL. It was a bit like a military Ofsted, and a team could turn up at an airbase—for example, RAF Brüggen in West Germany—say that world war three had just broken out and basically put the station through its paces for several days, and they would get an Ofsted-like score at the end.
It is not quite as severe as that, but the Armed Forces Commissioner has an Ofsted-like capability under the Bill to turn up unannounced, certainly within the UK; it is more complicated if it is abroad. Do you think that that power will be valuable in holding people to account and concentrating minds, and how often do you think the commissioner should use it?
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am old enough to recall TACEVAL, sir, and was part of that way back in the late 1980s.
Mr Francois
I was trying to be nice.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: You are very kind, but I remember it as Ofsted-like. When I was a commanding officer, I remember Ofsted visiting my unit, which was a training unit as well. I will phrase my answer in that respect. I found those inspections to the chain of command hugely beneficial on two grounds: they provided an independent view of the operational output of a given unit, and they allowed me to ensure, with confidence, that I had the appropriate processes and policies in place to deliver my output.
I have not been close to the Air Force in a regular sense for 18 months, but I guess the challenge would be how that is defined either in the Bill or in the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner—what output are you looking for from a particular unit, and what is it you are checking? The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund will not have a particular view, but my personal view is that, if properly configured, it would be of value to commanding officers. I have no specific view on timescale, but once every 18 months would be the absolute maximum for me, based on my own personal experience in a training establishment.
Mr Francois
Q
We will move to the Royal Navy—apologies for leaving the senior service until last, Ms Harding. On the housing side, in my experience all three services tend to treat service housing slightly differently. From memory, quite a lot of service personnel live off base and tend to commute to their place of work. Quite a few of them actually buy a property rather than live in a quarter. Obviously, housing is one issue that the commissioner will look at. Are you happy that the powers in the Bill are sufficient for the commissioner to investigate that issue? I am thinking particularly about the ability to produce thematic reports, and housing is an obvious issue for an early report. Do you have a particular view on that?
Mandy Harding: From what I have read of the Bill, my understanding is that the Armed Forces Commissioner will have the power to investigate and look at issues that are arising. In our charity’s line of work, we come into contact with beneficiaries and we get reports in through the partners and organisations that we fund. In direct work with the people we have been supporting, particularly on neurodiversity and special educational needs and disabilities, housing does crop up.
That is the exciting part of having an Armed Forces Commissioner—somebody who can hear from different areas and connect the dots to realise what is happening in different places. There is an oversight role there. That is incredibly useful to us as grant funders. We do our grant funding based on need, so if need is identified, that is where we can bring that wraparound support to families.
Mr Francois
Q
Mandy Harding: We realise that a lot of our families have “plus, plus, plus” issues. We know that across the country there are issues with SEND. Getting assessments is very difficult and transferring across local authorities is particularly tricky. The issues were laid out quite well in the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker, which was commissioned in 2019. She laid out some recommendations, most of which—over 100—were accepted by the Government at the time. We have built on that report. We have continued to investigate need; we have gone out to beneficiaries to find out what is going on and what they need. That is the power of using commissioning principles in our grant-making, which is quite unique. We can then commission with the use of grants, having seen who the best provider is.
One of the big pieces of work we are doing is around neurodiversity. It is a big area of work, and I have already booked to speak to both my colleagues either side of me, because we would like to make this a tri-service piece of work going forward. I think that is what will be required to enable the changes that we can see might need to happen.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Q
The provision in clause 3 provides that service complaints can be made from people who are not necessarily service personnel, which is different from what happens with the ombudsman now. First, what are your thoughts on that? Secondly, one of the themes that has come through is the need for trust and transparency about the impact from anything that the new role does. How could that change enhance that?
Mandy Harding: I can take the first part of the question. I referred to the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker. That report was very significant because it identified that when one person serves, the whole family serves. Having access for families is a welcome addition and my colleagues at the Naval Families Federation will be able to speak more effectively on that. It is not my area of expertise, because I am a grant maker, but I am sure that they would have more to say.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I agree completely. We have a phrase in the Air Force: “Support the family”. You retain the service person by supporting the family. In respect to the question you ask, I would be supportive of the service family having that access. As a charity, it is important that we recognise the offer to the serving person. That offer is effectively a psychological contract that covers many different aspects, whether it be pay, pensions, housing, accommodation, food, or ability to get access to medical and dental care— and, indeed, the charities, too, play a role in that offer. It affects the serving families in different points at different times. It is very difficult to say there is a single issue or a few issues that are causing the level of dissatisfaction reported through the armed forces continuous attitude surveys and the like and through the families continuous attitude survey.
We are a families federation, and provide more detail on certain families. It is a multi-faceted issue, though, and difficult to pinpoint one particular place. It is important to understand that that offer is multifaceted and is a psychological contract at its very heart. It could take a number of things, which begin over time, to wear away the good will of that family, which then leads to dissatisfaction and, ultimately, people leaving the services.
Col. Darren Doherty: I do not think I can add much more to that, or comment on access to the service complaints system from beyond the serving person. I can speak about the wider family context and put it against what we provide.
As the Army Benevolent Fund, we provide a lifetime of support to serving and former soldiers and their immediate families, including the bereaved, when they are in need. That has built up since the Army Benevolent Fund was formed, 80 years ago. Even then, we understood the importance of the family unit and the importance of supporting the continuum of service, not just of the service person but of the whole family as they continue through the journey: joining, leaving and then serving, whether as a reservist, or a regular reservist, as in my case, and as a veteran, with the family that serves alongside them. That person, family or service person might be bereaved as well. It is about that total inclusivity.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am happy to take the question. Yes, I suppose there is that potential. The chain of command still has a vital role. Where I could see the benefit is that, having gone through and made my point about the offer being multifaceted, the response for the serving person and their family is multifaceted as well. The Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in that.
There will be times, I suspect, when the legislation will come into conflict—perhaps that is the wrong term—with the chain of command. I still think the chain of command must be the overarching way in which military effect and operational output is delivered. That is the success of how it is done. But I think that, appropriately placed, the Armed Forces Commissioner can support, augment and, in co-operation with the chain of command, improve the lives of the serving person and the family. There is a risk, of course, but I think it can work.
Col. Darren Doherty: I agree with all that. There is potential for the Bill to undermine the chain of command and potential for it to work against the chain of command; much depends on the selection of the right individual to do the role and on the role being developed and there being a framework for operating how the office goes about its business beyond what is laid out in the Bill. This is about building trust and confidence with those it supports, including individuals who might bring things to the attention of the commissioner, and also about the confidence of the wider organisation as well.
To answer your question, there is that potential, but everything that I have read in the Bill, heard in the debates and read in Hansard is in people’s minds. I listened to some of the earlier speakers today comparing it the outwith-the-chain-of-command ways that we have with dealing with issues now. You will well remember dealing with the padre and medical officers as something outside the chain of command.
All those things do not happen overnight. Those need to be built up as individual relationships in terms of trust within organisations. This is something new—a step beyond what the ombudsman provides. It will take time and careful implementation, from a practical perspective, for it to work. But I do see that there is huge benefit in having such an office there for the individual and the organisation and in support of the chain of command as well. They can potentially all work together.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: The legislation is certainly strong enough to put them in that position. Again, it goes back to the type of individual selected for the role and the trust and the confidence that they build with the community. I can speak only on behalf of the Army.
It will take a period of time to educate people on what the role is. That is why it is absolutely critical that the Bill is fit for purpose and, more importantly, that the policy and framework that sit beyond it, in terms of implementation, are right as well, and that we are absolutely clear where the boundaries and responsibilities for the office lie, and also the gearing between it and other offices.
That goes back to one of the issues raised a few times in the debate, which is the scope of the role—looking predominantly at the community subject to service law and how that relates to the wider military community, going back to that continuum of service. How that all interlocks with what is currently provided by the Minister for Veterans and People and veterans commissioners, where they exist, is all very important in the messaging and communicating with the community.
It is a wide remit. It is summed up in a few small sentences, but dealing with welfare issues could be incredibly complex and wide-ranging. There are very few welfare issues that do not straddle the serving family and go into the veteran space in a sort of time continuum. Those are all important parts of the messaging of what the role is going to be about.
Helen Maguire
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: The legislation is clear where access is permitted and enabled. It will be a challenge where matters of operational security come into it, but I think all those are manageable. Again, it is about the framework of how the office will operate—it will need to be right where it is needed.
My experience of operations, going back to my previous experience, but close to my heart, is that welfare is a chain-of-command business. It is what officers, senior non-commissioned officers and junior non-commissioned officers get paid to do. I am always minded that they often do that best on operations. I would hope that the commissioner’s role would be less needed in operations, but that is yet to be proved by evidence or experience. I would hope that we get on with that better there than perhaps we do in some of the quieter, peacetime locations.
Helen Maguire
Q
Mandy Harding: It is difficult to know how distinct our challenges are, because I do not know the challenges that the communities of my colleagues face. Somebody told me that the Army tend to work within family groupings and units, whereas the Navy take a village to sea. I thought that was an interesting analogy of the difference. That brings different issues. Lengths of deployment are different. Beyond that, I am not sure I can offer you more because I am not sighted on my colleagues’ areas of expertise.
Helen Maguire
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I would make two points. There is a community and a family around a particular RAF station, of which there are 24 or 26 in the UK and others elsewhere, but there is increasingly a diaspora of families who live elsewhere, separated from that base. You have individuals who are weekend commuting to a different location where there is not the localised support for a family. It varies.
Generally speaking, historically, the support has always been focused around a serving base for the Royal Air Force. Increasingly, we need to reach out into other areas of the UK, where families have now settled for other reasons. That diaspora is UK-wide, in the UK context. It is a different challenge and there are different needs associated with both.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Q
Could you give us a flavour of the issues coming forward in the cohort that we are talking about in the Bill to your organisations and how you think shining a spotlight on some of those structural issues might be able to address some of the underlying causes? The purpose of the commissioner is, ideally, to assist in removing some of the barriers, obstacles and challenges that our service people and their families face. I would be interested to get your sense as to whether those structural issues have always been here or whether you have seen changes in recent years that need to be addressed by the commissioner.
Col. Darren Doherty: I would start by saying that much of our work is currently done and our support is currently provided to the veteran and family community. Only about 12% of our grants go to the serving community. That is because we base them on need and, thankfully, many in the serving community do not feel that need until they have left. Of that 12%, much is made up of family support in terms of bereavement and those sorts of things.
I think the situation is changing. In the future, I think we are going to look much more towards causation and prevention, which will be more within the serving community. I would highlight a project that we have recently become involved with, which is funding a training and education mechanism that will look at domestic abuse. That is not just treating or helping to support the victims of domestic abuse through a helpline, although that is part of it. The main part, through a charity called SafeLives, is looking at training and education. Much of that is aimed towards our serving community, through their own welfare officers. That initiative was prompted by the work of our trustees identifying that they thought this might be an issue. We cross-checked that with the Army and they believed it was.
That is an example where a thematic study carried out, or a report by the commissioner, could help identify other areas of need in the serving community where the third sector and in the Army’s case, the Army Benevolent Fund, could intervene and try to get at some of the root causes of these issues. That is where we intend to go in the future, while still providing the same degree of support to meet the need that we do now.
Mandy Harding: We are a commissioning charity in the sense that our grant-making uses commissioning principles based on need. We commission through grants to partners to deliver the outcomes. We do that by identifying need. We are very interested in needs, and any identified needs, because where we can identify the need, that is where we can appropriate the right resources and the right investment. From our point of view, anything that helps with that is very useful.
In terms of what is coming up, we have just commissioned some new work around mental health and wellbeing because of the changes we are seeing. Deployments now are to hostile areas, families have less information and the anxiety is harder for them. You cannot shield children so easily from social media and the news. Families have explained to us that they have tried to shield their children from the news in the home, but that changes the moment they go to school—I think HMS Diamond was probably a very good example of what happened, and the distress that those families felt at seeing that on the news and trying to shield their children from what was going on. There is a change and a shift.
From our charity’s position, we are currently looking at need again. We did a piece of need research of our own in 2019. Professor Walker’s work came in, which was incredibly helpful. With colleagues at Greenwich Hospital and at the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, we are all looking at need. We are working with the RAF and with the RAND research project to try to see what need is there. If a commissioner came in, it follows that we would be supportive of a commissioner who might be able to pull themes together for us, and then we can make the appropriate investments.
The only thought that I would offer from our experience of working with beneficiaries and organisations—particularly when I have done research into need and talked with beneficiaries—is to manage expectations. I think managing families’ expectations of this will be a challenge.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: I just have a few points to add. From a Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund perspective, we augment what the service already provides. Much of what we see in the serving community in particular is what the air force has asked us to provide or, indeed, where we have found a specific need that is not being provided for either by the Royal Air Force locally on station or by partner charities.
I would pick up two areas in which we have seen an increase or growth over the last couple of years. The first is in emotional wellbeing support and sub-clinical mental wellbeing. We have a listening and counselling service that is accessed by over 2,000 people a year, of whom 80% are from the serving community. It was originally set up as a veterans’ programme, and it is now dominated by the serving community.
The second area is around children and young people. Increasingly, we have picked up a requirement to support children and young people, not just through after-school clubs or our youth club provision on stations, but through holiday provision as well. Increasingly, we are seeing the need to support serving children. Particularly where both parents are serving—that is increasing—we have picked that up as a requirement, and colleagues from the Royal Air Force Families Federation will be able to help with that.
As far as addressing underlying causes and needs goes, if the commissioner can be part of that solution, as I mentioned earlier, that would be fantastic. Already, it is a multifaceted response, but if the commissioner can come and say, “Here is an issue. This is what we have picked up. Is it being picked up by any other organisations?”—that includes, by the way, local authorities, the NHS and local education authorities—I think that would be of huge benefit.
David Reed
Q
Col. Darren Doherty: I do not know.
Mandy Harding: I am firmly in grants, so I am not the right person to answer that question, I am afraid.
Air Commodore Simon Harper: From what I have seen, it is not clear how that would happen.
David Reed
Q
Air Commodore Simon Harper: Yes, it would.
The Chair
No further questions, so I thank the three of you for giving evidence this afternoon. We will move on to our next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Collette Musgrave, Sarah Clewes and Maria Lyle gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome: will each of you introduce yourself for the record?
Collette Musgrave: I am Collette Musgrave, the chief executive of the Army Families Federation.
Sarah Clewes: I am Sarah Clewes, the chief executive of the Naval Families Federation.
Maria Lyle: I am Maria Lyle, director of the RAF Families Federation.
Mr Francois
Q
You represent the families of service personnel and, as at the heart of the Bill are issues of general service welfare, may I give each of you an opportunity to raise your top two or three issues under that heading that you would like to see the commissioner produce early thematic reports on and to give us some idea why you picked those? This time, let us start with the senior service.
Sarah Clewes: “Welfare” is an interesting term. We are not in the welfare space. The Navy is looked after by the Royal Navy families and personnel service—they deal with welfare. However, under what “welfare” might mean to families, at the Naval Families Federation, our top two issues are housing and support to non-UK serving personnel and their families, with visa and immigration, the processes and the ongoing need for support from our qualified caseworkers.
Collette Musgrave: To be frank, I will be boring and raise the same two issues—but I will expand a little on “non-UK”. We have had multiple investigations and reports on the state of housing and accommodation—SLA and SFA—but there has been little investigation into the nature of the challenges that non-UK serving personnel, or family members who might be non-UK, also face in service family life.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: Non-UK serving personnel have been increasing year on year and form a much greater proportion of our armed forces than they once did.
Mr Francois
The Royal Air Force, what about you? It will be interesting to see whether we have a hat trick. Will you give us your top one or two?
Maria Lyle: You nearly have a hat trick. You say that we represent families, which we absolutely do. We represent serving personnel as well, which is why I will mention housing in terms of houses, but also single-living accommodation. We had 650 people who came to us this year on that issue, before we get going on housing itself.
My second one—we have a much smaller non-UK population in the RAF because we recruit differently—would be education and childcare. That is what people come to us about in its various forms and facets.
Mr Francois
Q
Maria Lyle: It does. That is the very sharpest end of the wedge when it comes to challenges for military families. If they are moving, picking up that provision and replicating it in a new area is not always possible. I would say that they are the most vulnerable—the ones who have the biggest challenges to overcome in our systems.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: I would merely echo Maria’s comments. It is very much at the sharp end of things in education provision for service children. SEN is a real concern for us, and significant numbers of people articulate to us that they are going to either leave or serve in separated service, because of the frustrations felt through many years of moving from location to location and having to start the SEN process over again. The transferability of many things that affect service personnel and their families, both for those inside the UK and those moving to and from the UK, is a real challenge and can often be the final tipping point for them making that decision to either leave or serve unaccompanied.
Mr Francois
Q
Collette Musgrave: Indeed you did.
Mr Francois
The pressure on family life, as we have already heard today, is the single biggest reason why people leave, but when we went round a number of military bases, we found it was often an amalgam of reasons. Sometimes there would be a pressure cooker effect over several years, and then one thing might become, in colloquial English, the straw that broke the camel’s back. Sometimes it is that cocktail that just becomes a bit too much. Is that a fair characterisation? [Interruption.] I can see some heads nodding, so that still holds good five years on. Thank you very much. You have been generous with your time, Mr Efford—thank you.
Helen Maguire
Q
Collette Musgrave: The challenges that we see with families getting the support they need can be articulated as both internal and external. Internal services and processes are the ones that Defence offers to families in order to maintain service family life, and then there are those provided by what one might characterise as external agencies—whether that is local authorities, the NHS, educational provision or whatever. The nature of the challenge can be different depending on with whom families are seeking to engage.
The challenges within the internal system can be largely about not being able to access the right information, not being given the right information when asking for it, consistency of the information and guidance that is given, and consistency of the provision. As we have spoken about, Army families in particular are very mobile, and what they are provided with in one location might be very different to what they are provided with in another, both in extent and quality of provision. We would really like to see the Armed Forces Commissioner do something on that in their role.
As the Army Families Federation, we absolutely welcome the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner with, as the Secretary of State said, a laser-like focus on the serving experience, which is often lost when talking about the armed forces community—those who are actually serving at the moment. We believe the Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in looking at the consistency of provision of both policy and processes within defence. Many of the concerns that come to us are a result of mixed information and mixed messages, and families not being able to access the provision that is there because they simply do not know how to access it or are being blocked in some way.
Externally, the issue is subtly different. There is not an unwillingness from the general UK population to support service personnel and their families. What there is sometimes is a lack of knowledge and understanding. In many of the large organisations that they are interfacing with, whether that is the NHS, a local authority or the Department for Work and Pensions, there is often a lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of service personnel and their families. It is difficult sometimes for those families in particular, who are to an extent slightly outside society—I am not articulating that well, because that is not what I want to say, particularly as a former service family and veteran myself. Often with housing, as well as sometimes healthcare and education—particularly if they are overseas or move back from overseas—their interfaces with external statutory authorities are not always straightforward and can vary hugely as they move around the country. Your experience in Scotland might be very different to your experience in England. Their ability to interface effectively with those services can sometimes be compromised.
Many of these organisations have signed up to the armed forces covenant. The people at the top are very happy to sign up to the armed forces covenant and say, “Yes, we made a great commitment.” The people on the frontline, who are actually dealing with our service personnel and their families, are often not so well-informed and do not necessarily fully understand some of the additional or different provision that has been made under the terms of the armed forces covenant. Those are the big handfuls, and to finally answer your question, those two key areas are where the Armed Forces Commissioner could help.
Helen Maguire
Q
Sarah Clewes: It is about just being mindful that not all naval families live around the base port areas. You would expect that some do, and that is absolutely fine, but others choose to live wherever their support network or employment is. Actually, dispersed families are much more common than you would perhaps think, because there is that assumption that everyone lives in service family accommodation around a base port area, but they absolutely do not.
It is about trying to reach those people who are very happy and thriving in their community of choice, who may not need any support from the Navy. Actually, when they do, hopefully they have a life-changing event or do not know about the free swimming and sailing that is available to them. It is about spreading the net really wide and saying, “If you ever need that support, we are here for you, in whatever guise that may be.” Welfare is absolutely not our part of ship, but it is about actually giving that little nugget of information to take away a little bit of pain. They may be juggling a very successful career and childcare while their partner or spouse is at sea or—worse still—under the water for six months, with absolutely no contact or very limited contact.
When appreciating service life, it is all very well to think that we know what it means, but we really have to understand what it means across a huge range of issues, and family dynamics are huge. We really need to be mindful of who we are talking about when we talk about families, and let’s not just pigeonhole folk and think we know.
Therefore, it is important that the commissioner does what we do on a daily basis. They have to ask, “What does that look like for naval families? VAT on school fees, what does that look like for naval families? Have you given them the information they need to make those informed choices or will they have to half-guess and hope that a hardship fund will become available so that they can get through Christmas?” It could be really impactful, and like Colette, I am absolutely interested to see how this could develop.
Helen Maguire
Q
Maria Lyle: I will not replay what my colleagues have said. Collette articulated a lot of the challenges that RAF families would also face in terms of their mobility. We very much see that. The thing that sums it up for me is the line that says that part of the role is improving public awareness of the welfare issues that serving families and personnel face, which I would wholeheartedly support. My only slight qualm about that is that it works two ways. Having a role that coalesces that understanding and helps us amplify people’s voices could be really powerful.
I would like to put on the record that I think it would be helpful if it is done in a way that supports the role in general, rather than put people off joining our military. Part of the challenge the military has at the moment is the impact of gapping and poor retention. This needs to be a part of bolstering the offer and talking about some of the benefits and challenges of military life. Otherwise we run the risk of making life worse for people because retention falls even lower. I recognise that is straying into a different area, but I would not want an opportunity to become a threat.
Luke Pollard
Q
I am interested to get your perspective on how you think an Armed Forces Commissioner’s office would deal with and seek to build trust with the families, because it is much easier for the commissioner to visit a base. If there is accommodation on site, that might be the case. But we know that not everyone who serves and their families live on bases. We explicitly exclude the commissioner from having a right to inspect someone’s home without notice, for very good and obvious reasons. But how do you think the commissioner should access and seek to get views from and be responsive to the needs of families? I know that will change depending on service and location and the barriers to get there. It is important that we have an understanding about what they are so we can seek to overcome them. Can you expand on that kind of challenge? Shall we go to the Navy first?
Sarah Clewes: That will be the tricky bit—building the trust and giving prompt responses. Doing what the commissioner says he or she is going to do will be really important to build that trust. We know from the covenant, for example, that has been around for 12 years, that if you ask serving personnel and their families, a large percentage of them still do not know what the covenant is, what it does, or how it changes their lives, and that has been around for a long time.
That is just an example of how education is absolutely key, as is building trust and rapport and having really slick processes so that if somebody has been invited to ask a question they get a swift response in plain language. Again, that will be really important when you respond to a serving personnel. You might send them a link to a joint service publication or whatever, but that will not wash with families who probably cannot access the JSP because of the firewall. What good is that? So having those tailored responses and being mindful of the audience that will be new will be absolutely key, and that will be the tricky bit.
Collette Musgrave: I would echo Sarah’s comments. Something that we have grappled with for a long time is how you engage with families. It is really important to understand, as Sarah says, how important trust in the system is. If expectations are not met fairly swiftly, families, on past experience, will simply not engage. But there is a more practical element, which Sarah touched on: access, accessibility and understandability. Too many of the responses that come out of Defence and too much of the communication is in language that is simply not accessible to people who are not wearing uniform. As somebody who used to wear uniform and was an MOD civil servant, I would argue that at times it is not even accessible to me, so it is about making it clear and really easy to access and offering a range of access.
Yes, we are all shifting to digital, and yes, we have seen in our organisations a distinct switch to people wanting to engage with us via email or other digital means, but there is still a large section of families who are not really able or willing to engage with that process. They will need to be able to pick up the phone and speak to somebody, and to have somebody at the other end who understands what they are saying. If I may refer back to the housing issue, the roll-out of the new housing contract and the Pinnacle help desk, one of the biggest issues with that was not having somebody who picked up the phone. When someone did, they had no empathy or sympathy with the issues being raised, let alone an understanding of them. In terms of the physical process of access, that will be absolutely key in ensuring that that works for families, is consistent and delivers what they expect.
Maria Lyle: The only thing I would add is that there is an opportunity to get it right at the beginning. Yes, no one gets everything nailed on the first time—the person in that role needs to develop it—but if the offer is clear at the beginning, it makes it a lot easier. By that, I mean: is this office more strategic or tactical? That is part of the process that we are working out now. By that, I mean that if people are making a series of phone calls to that office, it will have to be staffed to deal with multiple thousands of calls a year. If that is not what the office is set up to do, and if it is more about dealing with and amplifying strategic messaging about what is going wrong, the communications could be based on that. But if families are led to believe, “This is somewhere I can ring and they will get my house sorted,” it is about managing those expectations and nailing those comms.
Therefore, upstream of that, it is about being very clear and coherent about what the office is setting out to do. Is it individual case management for any family who rings up with a problem? That is very different from an office that views the evidence and goes, “The key issues for military families are these three. Here is what my team is going to do about them.” In terms of what you communicate to families, those are quite different beasts. It is really important to get that right.
Pam Cox
Q
“the welfare of persons subject to service law and”—
this is a key phrase—“relevant family members”. That is left deliberately broad. What is your view on how a relevant family member might be defined?
Collette Musgrave: Where to start? This is a problem that we have grappled with for many years. The Army Families Federation is 42 years old, and what a family member looked like back then is very different from what a family member looks like now.
Maintaining that flexibility about what a family member is has been absolutely key for us in being able to properly support families. It may very well be a spouse or civil partner, or it may be a child. It may be a grandparent, if they were involved in caring for or supporting the family in any way. It may be an aunt or uncle. Quite frankly, with many of the people we deal with, some of whom have had quite challenging and difficult upbringings, it may be that they regard their wider friendship network as their family and their support network. It is a real challenge sometimes for us as an organisation to delineate and work this out so that we can best support the individual or the family in question.
Clearly, when it comes to the provision of defence processes and services, there are quite clear rules and regulations about who is in scope. My organisation and I personally might take issue with some of those, but none the less they are quite clearly laid out. One of the key difficulties that families face is often navigating that alongside their expectations, and alongside how wider society and some of the statutory external bodies I referred to earlier regard a family. It is that level of confusion that this process will have to work through quite quickly, referring back to Maria’s point about expectation management.
I note that in the debate and the questions in the House there were quite a lot of comments about bereaved families. There has been a significant amount of work over the last couple of years on identifying and supporting bereaved families, and meeting their actual needs rather than their perceived needs. We would certainly like to see bereaved families being addressed in some way within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner’s activities.
That would probably be something of a challenge, because the needs and requirements of a family when they are initially bereaved can be quite different from those of a bereaved family 10 or 20 years down the line. That would most definitely be something of a challenge for the Armed Forces Commissioner to work through. Nevertheless, we feel quite strongly that bereaved families should be included in the scope of the definition of families. Beyond that, it is not straightforward. We would like to see the broadest possible definition, because that is what service personnel and their families need, and it should be responsive to their needs and not to what happens to be in the relevant JSP.
Maria Lyle: I recognise that in the legislation, there may need to be—I do not know; I am not responsible for passing this Bill—a clause about what is applicable overseas and in the UK regarding families, for example, and how they are defined and dealt with.
I will give a live example of why it is important to keep the definition as broad as possible. At the moment, adult children are no longer defined as “dependents”, but many families talk to us about the needs of their young adult children who cannot access bases because they can no longer get a dependent’s pass, perhaps because they are at university or have left university. These days, of course, it is really hard for a young person to get accommodation, so they often stay at home sharing married quarters in a way that they would not have done 10 or 20 years ago. It is that sort of thing—the changing shape of family—and this Bill is an opportunity to allow some of those issues to be voiced and made relevant to an Armed Forces Commissioner.
Sarah Clewes: A family may also constitute a couple who have chosen not to have children or who cannot have children. We may think of them as a couple, but actually they are a family, because they are a couple. Are they within or without scope? It is important to consider every single differing family dynamic so that people are not excluded.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Maria Lyle: I was thinking about that element beforehand. It depends on how the process pans out, in terms of how strategic or how tactical the role of the commissioner’s office is. We want this Bill to be a really helpful change in how military families and personnel are supported, so we want there to be as useful a working relationship with the Armed Forces Commissioner as possible.
For example, we would be really keen to share with the commissioner on a regular basis the information and evidence that we receive all year. There is a rich pattern of data across the sector—the third sector that deals with families—that could be brought to bear in terms of identifying exactly where the big issues are that the Armed Forces Commissioner could shine a light on, perhaps leaning in with Government Departments.
The change in this Bill is the report to Parliament. The armed forces covenant also provides for a report to Parliament every year. That is not necessarily independent; it is Government reporting on themselves. The legislation gives a layer of independence. If we can use this mechanism and get behind it to help the commissioner to have the evidence they need to enact change, that is certainly how we see our role and work with the commissioner’s office.
Sarah Clewes: Just to add to that, I think evidence is absolutely key. If we were to go for a scattergun approach and ask several charities, they would have an opinion. However, is that helpful? The families federations work very hard to provide evidence so that we can find the themes and find out what matters most. That is not to say that we discount other things that may be in the margin, but I think it is so important to have an evidence base on which to make decisions. Otherwise we could just go for a scattergun approach, tie ourselves up in knots and jump on things that perhaps are important to some, but are they as important for others? We need a certain amount of prioritisation, and that is exactly what we have been doing for a number of years. The opportunity to build on that and funnel some of the information upwards for decision making is most welcome.
Collette Musgrave: Just to build on my colleagues’ comments, I think many—not all, but many—of the issues that face service personnel and their families, and that impact positively or negatively on their decisions about whether to join and stay in the armed forces, are fairly well known and have been looked at in the past from a number of angles. As Sarah and Maria say, there is a rich level of evidence already in place. It is a question of using that, but really trying to understand the scale and depth of the issues.
The issues are all well known, and there are many of us who will get behind a certain one at a certain time, or there will be an external event that prompts examination. But it is a question of understanding, across that broad range, which ones are really impacting rather than being an irritation. What is making a real difference, and what is the depth and scale? Getting in behind those issues is where the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring real value. Galvanising all the various bodies externally, and across defence and across Government, to co-ordinate and co-operate to do that could be quite a significant and positive change.
David Reed
Q
Sarah Clewes: That is a really good question. It is a case of dealing with the frustration. As I mentioned, the issue is the inability to make an informed choice. If people are given the information that they need, they can decide which way to go, but when they do not have that information or it comes late, they feel let down again. It is an erosion of the offer; they are not feeling looked after.
This is in the context of busy serving personnel who are not at home for long periods of time to do admin. That is often left to the spouse, who cannot make the decisions because they, too, do not have the information that they require. Again, this is all about feeling valued and feeling as though, if it is part of the offer, there should be a slick process whereby armed forces personnel have been considered and can get the information that they need to look after their children and give them the continuity of education that they deserve.
It is about the package and making people feel valued. It is also about being mindful that people are very busy when deployed on a ship or a submarine, which is the case for the people that we are looking after. Of course, the Royal Marines’ operational tempo is just constant, so there is not time. If there is time to be at home and do things such as admin for the CEA or whatever, the processes need to be really slick.
We have had instances of people coming to us and saying, “This is just too tricky; it’s too difficult. I’ve tried this, and I’ve tried to speak to that person, and in the end it’s too difficult. Do you know what? I’m going to leave because I’ve had enough. It’s too difficult.” That is where we will come in and say, “Surely you must be able to speak to a human being who understands your frustration and who can get this over the line, so that you can go and deploy without being distracted.” A lot of the time, it falls back to the charity sector to help in those ways. Is that right? I do not know, but it is becoming more prevalent that the charities will pick things up, just to take away a bit of the pain. It really should not be that painful. I am not sure if that answers the question, but slick processes, information and feeling valued are key.
David Reed
Q
Maria Lyle: I do not believe that I have a specific concern that the ombudsman being rolled into the Armed Forces Commissioner will make things more complex, or worse. Any machinery of government change will potentially add some time to a system—I get that. I do think there is an opportunity to look at the complaints system itself, and whether it is fully fit for purpose in that change, but I recognise that that is not what the Bill is focused on. My main concern is about whether the actual ombudsman processes are as effective as they can be when they are moved over, so they do not cause problems.
Collette Musgrave: I echo my colleague’s comments; there is nothing substantive that I can add.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, let us thank our witnesses for coming and giving evidence this afternoon. Thank you very much. The star of the show is now going to take the floor.
Examination of Witnesses
Luke Pollard MP gave evidence.
The Chair
Minister, if you could give us your name, rank and serial number, we will get on.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard): Hello, my name is Luke Pollard. I am the Minister for the Armed Forces.
Mr Francois
Q
I have a couple of other questions on the Bill. You said something on Second Reading that was not entirely clear—I do not mean that critically; it is just the way that it came out. Is the commissioner still going to take up individual cases that have exhausted the service complaints process, in the way that the Service Complaints Ombudsman currently does, or is the commissioner going to concentrate generally on more thematic issues? If it is the latter and not the former, that is a big change. Could you clarify that?
Luke Pollard: Yes, certainly. On the point about SEND, we have not specified an exhaustive list of precisely what the commissioner should be looking at because the independence of the commissioner allows them to choose which issues they want to address, based on the feedback that they are receiving from armed forces personnel and their families, or that they have identified on their visits. It is not an exhaustive list, and we are happy to look at particular circumstances—thank you for the notice.
When it comes to the role of the commissioner, we are effectively rolling the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions into the commissioner. The additional own initiative powers that will be added to this role, forming the commissioner’s office, will be for them to undertake thematic inquiries. Again, we have not overly specified the process that will happen when someone gets in touch with the commissioner, precisely because we want the commissioner to define what their processes should be and to have the independence to establish the processes, the structures and the ability to listen and feed into their thematic reports.
To the same extent, we have not specified how many thematic reports a commissioner should make. We are working on the assumption that, if they are looking at a range of issues, an annual report would contain a summary of their work throughout the year, as well as the usual annual reporting details about staff levels, volumes and other bits like that.
The Bill also includes the power for the commissioner to publish a separate report on a thematic issue if they choose to. It will be down to the commissioner to decide not only where that comes from, but where the issues are taken up. The commissioner has the ability to look at the service complaints system and the issues coming through that as one measure for deciding what thematic areas to investigate. It will be for the commissioner to decide what recommendations to make to Government via Parliament.
Mr Francois
Q
Luke Pollard: Exactly right—all the SCOAF functions move in their entirety. The only change we are making to the SCOAF functions is a very slight and minor one: at the moment, you need an officer to decide validity or eligibility, but that is being changed to an official. Apart from that, the entire SCOAF system is deliberately unchanged, because the place for any revisions to the functioning of the service complaints system would be the armed forces Bill, which will come in about two years’ time. The Bill gives the commissioner the ability to be informed by the service complaints system, as well as anything else they may receive, when deciding on thematic investigations or areas they want to look at.
Mr Francois
That is pretty clear, so thank you for clarifying. I will stop there because I know you have only limited time for your panel and others will want to ask questions.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Luke Pollard: The Minister for Veterans and People has been looking at the system and will be taking steps to see what the most appropriate representation or system to put in place is. We inherited a system that has national veterans commissioners in some locations, but not all. Al Carns will look at that in due course.
We have deliberately not specified the interaction between any established commissioner for veterans or veterans group and the commissioner in the Bill, because we want the Armed Forces Commissioner to make an independent judgment. My expectation, however, is that there would be regular meetings between the commissioner and the variety of stakeholder groups that operate in the wider armed forces community, partly to check in on issues, but also, importantly, to check in on the progress of their recommendations and how they are being implemented.
A key part of this process is shining a spotlight on an issue, and in my mind it is not sufficient to say, “Here is an issue,” and just present it to Parliament. There needs to be an understanding of what happens next with it, and that is where that interaction would probably be most found.
Michelle Scrogham
Q
Luke Pollard: When the commissioner’s office is stood up, there will be a ways of working agreement between the commissioner and the single services about how things work. I am not expecting the Armed Forces Commissioner to use their unannounced powers frequently. If you look at the German model, the armed forces commissioner in Germany spends about a third of her year undertaking visits, of which nearly all are planned. The ability to make an unannounced visit in the commissioner’s toolbox makes those powers even more prominent, because if an issue is reaching a certain threshold, they can decide to make an unannounced visit.
The powers on national security that we have included in the Bill come from the importance of making sure that in the proper exercising of their duties, the commissioner is focusing on general service welfare matters. What we do not want to see the commissioner doing, as you heard when the current SCOAF presented earlier, is looking at the secret squirrel elements. I do not want them looking into the intelligence services or secret squirrel locations, such as the operational design of missions. That all sits outside their remit; their remit is solely focused on general service welfare. The ability to define that via secondary legislation is a prudent and proportionate power that we have in the Bill. I suspect what will actually happen in most cases is, once the secondary legislation that details that has been published, a ways of working approach will be established.
I cannot really imagine any Armed Forces Commissioner having a remit or operations that step outside that clearly defined general service welfare lane, but if there are concerns, there is also a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to exercise that caution on visits, especially if there is a national security consideration. We would not expect that, given the welfare focus, but it is a proportionate safeguarding power, just in case.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
“This Bill will establish an independent Commissioner to serve as a direct point of contact for Armed Forces personnel and their families.”
However, I read the Bill and it does not do that. It takes on the ombudsman’s powers—that is chunk one—but only for service complaints. If someone has a housing problem, it is rarely going to be subject to a service complaint; it will go up the housing route. The second chunk is about more general thematic investigations. The Bill does those two things, but I do not think it provides a place for people to go day to day when they have a problem, because that gets into the jurisdictions of local authorities and local education authorities—there is a series of routes. If you are telling us that we are going to change the service complaints procedure so that—[Interruption.]
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Luke Pollard: Thank you. I do not think that it is necessary to legislate for the ability of the commissioner to have an email address, a website or a postal address. We gave a commitment on Second Reading that the commissioner should be accessible by a range of means. It is up to the commissioner to determine what that range of means is and to flex their resourcing to deliver that. The intent behind the establishment of the three functions as you described them, however, will be to provide a way for people who are serving to contact the commissioner. It might be for the commissioner to decide that, with thematic investigations, they operate a consultation function or a direct stakeholder function, in addition to some of the means of direct contact, but that is not necessary to have in primary legislation, which is the reason why it is not in primary legislation, but in the explanatory note, to explain the different roles that the commissioner will have.
Lincoln Jopp
Q
Luke Pollard: The important thing is to look at the outcome and the focus. The commissioner’s job is not to countermand orders or instructions given by the chain of command. That is not in their remit and they would not be able to undertake that activity. Where they will be support for the chain of command is in delivering a better output for their people.
In recent years, certainly—the situation that the new Government have inherited—we have had morale falling in all our services every year for the past 10 years. For every 100 people who join the armed forces, at the moment 130 leave, and that is not good enough. When we talk about renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve and about the Armed Forces Commissioner being the first legislative pillar to do that—the largest pay rises for 20 years and increasing recruits’ pay by 35% are part of that, fellow travellers on the journey—we are trying to support people to join the armed forces and to stay in them longer.
We are aware that for some of the chain of command, the issues that their people are raising with them are not within their remit. For example, over many years and certainly in the past decade or so, we have contractualised housing out of the responsibility of a base commander. Therefore, the ability of commanding officers to respond to some of the welfare needs of their people has been diminished by changes in contractualisation and operating procedures. We hope to make inroads into looking at what we can do to support that by trusting our people more. As part of that, we want to have a commissioner who can shine a spotlight on the thematic issues—in effect, issues that affect our people and their families.
I do not see that as in any way challenging the chain of command. I see it as an ability for the chain of command to deliver their functions in a more efficient manner by having a greater focus on the welfare needs of their people. That is a complementary function to the many welfare needs already undertaken by the chain of command, but especially in those areas where they otherwise might not have any levers. That is why we suggest that the commissioner report to Parliament—via a necessary sifting of national security scrubbing of reports by the MOD—so we can shine a spotlight on that.
In opposition and in government, I have spoken to many people who are in the chain of command, and they have an absolute focus on improving the welfare of their people, but they do not always have the ability to improve all aspects of it. We therefore hope that the commissioner will assist. That is not the only area, but it is an important area—to ensure that parliamentarians of all parties may scrutinise where there is a deficiency in the welfare provision for our people and their families. That is what we hope to do with the commissioner.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: It is quite normal in legislation of this type for there not to be provision in primary legislation. It is certainly the intent of the Secretary of State and me to ensure that provision is given to that coming back, but I am aware of an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in a similar way. I am happy taking that issue and having a discussion about what we can do to ensure that sufficient attention is given to any recommendations.
When we were drafting the legislation, we tried to ensure that where a Secretary of State who has not been involved with the origin of the Armed Forces Commissioner may be in post, they cannot put in place any obstacles to the proper scrutiny of the welfare needs of armed forces personnel and their people. The expectation is that the Ministry of Defence would respond to those recommendations; what we would need to establish informally, which does not require primary legislation, are the methods for tracking the recommendations.
Certainly, as a new Government, we are very aware that many of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee, for instance, to Government over the past decade sometimes have not even been responded to or had information provided back. As part of renewing the relationship between Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, we believe that enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of what the Ministry of Defence does will produce better outcomes both strategically and for our people, so that we will be able to respond to those recommendations from the Armed Forces Commissioner, HCDC and other bodies that report on the welfare needs of our people.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: The legislation has been drawn so that the decisions on what issues to take up—effectively which priority to look at and which sequencing issue will be looked at, certainly on the thematic side—are decisions for the commissioner to be informed by. Certainly, for a commissioner of this type, the challenge procedure would be via judicial review, which would be similar for other commissioners of this style if there was a serious challenge.
We are not trying to set an expectation that the commissioner will be able to undertake a thematic investigation immediately into every major topic. We have seen from the German model that the annual report may contain a large number of items or areas where they have received a form of representation—the German model calls it a petition, which does not quite work in the English translation—or where someone has written to the commissioner to raise a concern that is then used as a way of inputting feedback for the commissioner to make a decision on what to analyse. Clearly, given the quite considerable breadth of issues that fall under a general service welfare matter, quite a lot could be in there.
I am grateful to colleagues for raising particular concerns, such as housing and SEND. There is a lot that could feature. We have drawn the legislation purposefully so that that decision is made by the commissioner; it is not made by Government Ministers directing where it should be. It is for the commissioner to establish those procedures, and I would expect the first commissioner to do that.
Graeme Downie
Q
Luke Pollard: Defence is a reserved matter. It is appropriate that this legislation legislates for all the United Kingdom, but we are aware that some of the welfare matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, across the overseas territories—with the exception of Gibraltar, which has a different legislative set-up from the other OTs—they might be the responsibility of a non-Westminster Administration. In those circumstances, we have chosen not to require those devolved Administrations to report or respond in the same way as we do for the Ministry of Defence to be able to lay the report, but we are using the same kind of principles that SCOAF, who spoke earlier, has, which is effectively an agreement that there will be a conversation with the devolved Administrations on those matters. I expect a constructive relationship, as similar roles have with devolved Administrations, but we have not specified a requirement for them to report back or to respond to the commissioner’s report.
What we are aware of, for instance, are issues around service housing at RAF Lossiemouth. That would be the responsibility of the local council in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government. In those circumstances, if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government. I would expect them to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government to be able to deliver understanding, but the legislation grips on the Westminster Government, because defence is a reserved matter in that respect.
David Reed
Q
Luke Pollard: When we were in opposition, we were looking at the areas where our people in the armed forces and their families were experiencing difficulties. It fed into the broad question: why are so many people leaving our armed forces? Why is there a challenge on recruitment? Why is morale falling, and why has it been falling for the last decade? Although there is not one single reason for those—in many cases it is an aggregation of lots of different reasons—there was a general sense from the Secretary of State, me and other Members of the then shadow Defence team that there was a problem with the offer, or effectively the contract, between the nation and those who served.
We thought that having an independent person with the ability to articulate and advocate those issues to Government would be beneficial. I think that that reflects a concern that in some cases the issues, which we heard in the evidence today, are quite well known. The ability to shine a spotlight more clearly on those issues to prompt action was something that we were quite keen on.
We worked closely in opposition, along with officials in the Ministry of Defence since forming a Government, with the German Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. Dr Eva Högl has been exceptionally helpful in providing not just advice on the legislative underpinnings—she describes her version of this Bill as “perfect”, so it is quite a high bar for us to hit in scrutinising this—but the implementation of how the Bill works. That has given us an idea of how to ensure, when we are looking at a service welfare matter, that there is adequate scrutiny.
Also, by having those reports ultimately given to Parliament, we can avoid the situation that can sometimes happen in this place—where reports are given to Government and then sat on. That is what we are hoping to avoid by routeing it via the Ministry of Defence through a national security scrub, which I think everyone in this room would expect, then having it laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State within a defined time period. I am pretty confident about that.
We also looked at the SCOAF reports from the past that effectively asked for the own-initiative powers. I think it is quite hard for an independent role like SCOAF, albeit within the Government orbit, to engage directly with the Opposition in that respect, but I have been grateful for Mariette’s engagement since the introduction of this Bill, looking at where it can reflect the objectives that she may have for own-initiative powers and how that would work.
That is effectively the origin of how we got here. We wanted this Bill to be one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government proposed to Parliament, because we wanted it to be a signpost, signal and statement of intent to our people who serve that we recognise that there has been an erosion of the contract between them and the nation, and we want to do something about it. It will take some time to mobilise this office, assuming a standard journey through parliamentary scrutiny. We are hoping that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office will be stood up at the start of 2026, which gives some time for procedures and policies to be put in place, as well as a decent appointment process that includes a proper opportunity for the House of Commons Defence Committee to scrutinise anyone who may be selected at the end of that.
On your second question, I am happy to have a chat with you about how complaints would be made. When we held stakeholder events with service charities and veterans organisations around the time of First Reading, when the Bill was published for the first time, there was a question about whether there should be a super-complaint function; that is, charities being able to raise an issue. In legislation, you normally have to define who is able to do that. We did not want to create an insider group of charities and an outsider group of charities, where some would be able to do so and others would not. That did not feel like the right idea here.
However, we would expect the commissioner to have regular dialogue—structured, formal, informal; however they see fit—with the wider armed forces community to listen to their concerns to make sure that it works. The first commissioner will establish those processes and procedures. It is up to them to define what those are, including complaints procedures and the other normal running of an office like this. We have not specified them in legislation, partly because it is unnecessary to do so in primary legislation, but also because they are the minimum requirements for a proper, functioning office, very similarly to how SCOAF, the Information Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner and other similar roles across Government work now.
Pam Cox
Q
Luke Pollard: You could argue that we are doing both. The SCOAF function has wanted own-initiative powers for quite some time, but there was a sense that simply giving additional powers to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a system that scrutinises a formalised and legislated-for complaints system, was not quite the way to exercise the own-initiative powers—the thematic investigations. That is why we have created a new office, effectively rolling in the SCOAF, but being clear that there is a change that improves the scrutiny function and provides a massive expansion of the opportunities for service personnel and, for the first time, their families. As a result, it needed to be named accordingly to demonstrate that change. In theory, we have delivered a better SCOAF as part of this function and a broader Armed Forces Commissioner opportunity.
We have not amended the SCOAF legislation at this stage. As I mentioned, if amendments are required there will be an opportunity to make them in the armed forces Bill that will follow. This sets the broad parameter that there should be own-initiative powers and independent persons to advocate on behalf of servicepeople. That is why the legislation has been drawn up as it is.
Pam Cox
Q
Luke Pollard: I think I picked that up in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar. I am happy to have a look at what that could be like. It is not normal for it to be in every piece of legislation that we would respond to reports. The normal process within Government is that there would be a response. But I am happy to include my hon. Friend in the conversations I am having to try to work out whether it is a requirement to add that to primary legislation, or whether a commitment to respond, as would normally be the case, would be sufficient to address those concerns. I am happy to have a conversation.
Helen Maguire
Q
Luke Pollard: We have deliberately drawn the powers to be quite limited. The Secretary of State can restrict access only on national security grounds or where there would be a danger to a person. The example that might work there is visiting the frontline during combat operations. There would clearly be a danger to our people if there were to be a formal visit, and there would probably be a danger to the commissioner in that situation. That gives a prudent safeguard power.
We have deliberately tried to separate the powers that might normally exist for the Secretary of State from this role so that there is more independence for the commissioner. By establishing a novel route to Parliament, we have also provided Parliament with greater ability to raise any concerns. If the commissioner encounters any difficulties with interactions with the Ministry of Defence or other providers of services for our people, they are able to raise that in their reports. Those are then given to Parliament to be able to independently scrutinise, separate from the MOD.
What we have tried to do is to separate those functions out. I think we have succeeded in doing that in the Bill. The style of how that will happen in practice will depend on the person appointed to the office and how that office is established. However the principle of impartiality and independence from the Ministry of Defence—and, importantly, from the single services—is at the heart of this legislation. The legislation is designed to build trust, so that people can go to the commissioner if they want to raise a concern.
Helen Maguire
Q
Luke Pollard: The hon. Lady is a relatively new Member in this House. If she had been here over the last seven years, she would have seen this massive gay over here—me—speaking loudly about equality matters. I feel incredibly strongly about this. From an armed forces point of view, we should value all our people. That is the intent of this Bill: to provide an opportunity for all our service people and their families—a cohort of people absolutely essential for the delivery of our national security who have often been forgotten in legislative and some MOD approaches in the past.
There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner was undertaking their reports, they would be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and families. I would expect that to be present. If looking at some of the equivalent reports we have seen, there would be an opportunity for the commissioner to look at the experience not only of the whole armed forces but groups within it—however those may be defined. There would be an opportunity for the commissioner to make that distinction in experience, not just in determining what issue to raise but also how they investigate it. I would expect that to be front and centre. If it is not included, I would expect Parliament to be able to scrutinise and ask questions of the commissioner in due course.
Helen Maguire
Q
The Chair
Briefly, please.
Luke Pollard: I would expect them to have regular meetings with the chain of command—senior officers, base commanders, and people who form the rank and file of all our services. I think it is important the commissioner has the ability to decide who to interact with, and the ability to not only have interactions but—as set out in the legislation—to request information from the Ministry of Defence. It is not only about the ability to hold conversations, dialogue and engagement but to actually get the information required to inform their recommendations.
Amanda Martin
Q
Luke Pollard: With the exception of the Atherton review, which was a House of Commons Defence Committee report—a very good one—most of those reports have been externally commissioned: often commissioned by the Government to report on an issue they had chosen. The point of the commissioner is that they would not be informed by ministerial priorities or by looking at the areas the Government of the day wanted to look at; they would be informed by the representation that they received from armed forces personnel and their families. I think that is a really important distinction.
In many cases, reports have been commissioned but things have not necessarily been done. This legislation provides a route for parliamentarians to receive the report and to be able to raise questions and concerns. I would expect the commissioner to be a regular attendee of the House of Commons Defence Committee. It would be for that Committee to determine how, when and in what format that would take place, but I would expect there to be a brighter spotlight on those issues, precisely to stop these reports and recommendations being long-grassed, as we might have seen over the last decade.
Terry Jermy
Q
Luke Pollard: I am. The reason we have drafted the legislation as we have is to be absolutely clear about a separation of this commissioner’s office from the Ministry of Defence. I think the point that Mariette was making in her evidence is that the funding has to come from somewhere. However, I think it is the way that the commissioner is appointed, how they operate and how they build trust and confidence with our people that will build the independence in the role.
We can legislate for independence and separation, as we have done, but it is the operation of the role that will build trust with the people. That is why I will expect the commissioner to be on the road, visiting our forces and having those conversations, in order to build the trust. I will expect them to have a robust scrutiny process in terms of their appointment, and to be able to give Ministers a tough ride on the delivery of the issues that matter.
That is the reason we are doing this. If this role did not have any teeth, there would be no point in legislating for it. I want this role to be able to carry a really bright spotlight, to shine on the issues that are affecting our people—because ultimately, if we do that, we recruit more people, we retain more people and more people want to rejoin our armed forces, improving morale and service life. That ultimately improves our operational effectiveness as a military.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Luke Pollard: The Bill itself is not a stand-alone piece of legislation. It might be useful for hon. Members to understand that, effectively, it inserts legislation into the already existing Armed Forces Act 2021, which includes a section—I think it is section 340—that already includes the armed forces covenant. However, we did not want to specify the relevant family member in primary legislation; we wanted to be able to take more time to have conversations with stakeholders and define that through secondary legislation.
If the definitions were to change in the future, that could change. We have seen that the question of what a family is has changed. For me, a family is the most important unit of society, but what and how it is will be different for every different family. We are trying to find the right definition. I imagine the commissioner will have a view on that, and they can then make recommendations on that basis. That is why there is the option of being able to revise the definition via secondary legislation, which is an easier process than undertaking primary legislation—and the Armed Forces Bill comes round only once every five years.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Q
Luke Pollard: There is an obligation in the Bill for the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner to provide information. “Secretary of State” means that the whole organisation under the Secretary of State also has that obligation placed on them. I expect that, on appointment, the processes and functions will be established, just as they are with the current SCOAF function, in terms of being able to request information—who that goes to, how that should happen, and what the processes and procedures are to enable that to happen.
If there are any obstacles or failure to deliver, which I think is what my hon. Friend is getting at, the Bill allows the commissioner to report that to Parliament in their annual report: effectively to say, “There is a problem here”. That would provide the parliamentary scrutiny, which, for any future Secretary of State, would be a deterrent against failing to provide the necessary information. Equally, we put a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament if they dismiss or remove the Armed Forces Commissioner, to enable that scrutiny function of Parliament as an oversight for the work of the Executive.
Andrew Ranger
Q
Luke Pollard: I would expect the Bill to complete early next year. I would expect the appointment process to take roughly a year, and the office to be stood up as a commissioner’s office at the start of 2026, taking cases and, importantly, ensuring that all SCOAF cases are smoothly transitioned without any detriment to the individuals in that process—from the SCOAF function into the Armed Forces Commissioner function—to make sure there is no loss of any of that provision.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows the clauses and selected amendments that have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper.
The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause. A Member who has put their name to a leading amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they must indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
Armed Forces Commissioner
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must—
(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions;
(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions.
The armed forces covenant is
“a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.”
I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I will make a brief contribution to say that we take it as axiomatic that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be mindful of the principles of the armed forces covenant throughout the performance of his or her duties. There may be an occasion later in the debate when there is some conflict between those principles and what the Government are currently proposing, but we will highlight that when we get to it, to remain in order.
In essence, it seems to us entirely logical that the commissioner should be mindful of the principles of the covenant, as they are important. The two key principles, for the record, are that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage relative to the civilian population by virtue of their service and that there should be special consideration for armed forces personnel and their families, especially the wounded and the bereaved, in certain circumstances. Having placed those on the record, I am sure the Minister will not demur; hopefully, we can deal with this amendment fairly promptly.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is good to see Members from both sides on this Committee for an important piece of legislation. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment. I agree that it is important that we place prominence on the armed forces covenant. The amendment would require the commissioner to have due regard to the covenant principles as part of their general functions.
As the Committee will know, the armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the armed forces; and their families. The Government are fully committed to the armed forces covenant; indeed, our election manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we will bring that forward as a provision for consideration in the Armed Forces Bill, probably in roughly two years’ time.
An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to both serving and former serving members of the armed forces. The Armed Forces Commissioner is very much focused on the serving community and their families. It will be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where those relate to serving members of the armed forces and their families. I would imagine that those issues would be very much at the heart of what we mean by “general service welfare matters”, as outlined in the Bill. That will be within the remit of the commissioner, alongside the commissioner’s general function to promote the welfare of service persons and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the issues.
Mr Francois
Much of the covenant is already enshrined in legislation, as the Minister probably knows; that was done under the previous Conservative Government. Since he mentioned it, will he explain to the Committee which elements of the covenant he believes are not already enshrined in law and therefore would have to be covered in the next Armed Forces Bill?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to stray out of the lane of the legislation we are considering today towards legislation that we are not yet considering, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes. As he will know, only part of the armed forces covenant is in law, with a special grip on local government. In our manifesto, we committed to put it fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a cross-Government piece of work to identify precisely which clauses would need to be inserted into the Armed Forces Act to make that work.
Insertion into an Armed Forces Act is also relevant to the amendment of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. As she will know, this Bill not a stand-alone piece of legislation: it seeks to amend parts of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Can I direct her attention to part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006? That is the part that deals with the armed forces covenant. She is right in the respect that the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in this Bill; that is because this Bill, when passed, will be inserted into that Armed Forces Act, which includes part 16A relating to the armed forces covenant. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Helen Maguire
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from –
(a) the Ministry of Defence;
(b) the armed forces; and
(c) any other government bodies
and shall be free from any influence or interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from any interference in the carrying out of their duties.
Amendment 8 has been tabled to facilitate a debate on how truly independent the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner will be from the Ministry of Defence. The Committee may recall that this topic cropped up a number of times during our public evidence sessions on Tuesday. A number of Committee members asked witnesses about the extent to which the new Armed Forces Commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, would be at arm’s length from the Department and therefore able to exercise truly independent judgment.
The two generals, as opposed to the three tenors—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; I had the privilege of serving with both at the Ministry of Defence—both commented on this point. General Gregory in particular stressed that whoever takes up the commissioner’s job would have to work hard to earn the trust of members of the wider armed forces community. He suggested that one good way of doing that would be to get out and about—make visits to garrisons, naval bases and air fields to meet service personnel and their families and to hear their concerns face to face. There is an old infantry saying: “Time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted.” This would perhaps be another good example of that principle in action.
One reason for the concern is that the Armed Forces Commissioner and their office, including their staff, will be funded by the Ministry of Defence rather than by Parliament. I am mindful of the old saying: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To draw an analogy, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who are elected by this House to hold the Department to account, are paid for by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on behalf of the taxpayer and not directly by the Government. I would also draw an analogy with what has happened to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Under the previous Government, the OVA was deliberately set up as an entity outside of the Ministry of Defence, having its home in the Cabinet Office and with a very proactive Minister in the Cabinet in Johnny Mercer. He was able to not only hold the Ministry of Defence to account in Government but liaise with other Government Departments that had an important influence on veterans’ affairs. As an example, the Department of Health and Social Care is obviously very important to veterans. Once they leave the armed forces they are no longer reliant on the Defence Medical Services for their medical needs, and they transition to the NHS. The decision by the incoming Government to take that office and roll it back into the Ministry of Defence has led to some criticism, including from the veterans community themselves. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Efford, I might return to that in more detail under new clause 2.
For now, I remind the Committee that on multiple occasions on Tuesday the word “trust” was used, both by witnesses and members of the Committee questioning them. I ask the Minister what he can do this morning to reassure the Committee that the Armed Forces Commissioner, who, we understand from Tuesday’s session, is not likely to be up and running until early 2026, is going to be able to win the trust of service personnel and their families. Will the commissioner truly be in a position to act independently on their behalf and in their best interests? I hope the Minister can understand the context in which these questions are being asked. I eagerly look forward to what he has to say.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make a couple of small points. I have worked with ombudsmen in the past; ultimately, as we heard in the evidence earlier this week, somebody has to pay for an ombudsman. Often that is funded in other ways. I have previously worked with the energy ombudsman, whose funding comes from the energy companies. It is important to put that on the record.
Furthermore, just because an amendment says that someone is independent, that does not make it so. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, building trust will be crucial for the person in this role. Later clauses make clear the independence the commissioner will have—whether that is their ability to enter premises without notice, should they see fit, or to consider a range of different requests. My feeling is that the intent of the amendment is already covered by the Bill. It is important that we make sure that the commissioner builds that trust, as was pointed out by several witnesses on Tuesday.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I want to make a point about the wording of the amendment, which reads:
“The Commissioner shall operate independently from”.
Reviews that I have conducted of the powers of other commissioners do not explicitly state that. There are many special interest commissioners these days, so this would be an unusual provision in that regard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, I think the building of trust is essential to the smooth operation of the commissioner’s work with the armed forces and their families, which we so badly need. But that will be done in so many ways through the office of the commissioner. I do not think it would depend on this particular amendment.
Luke Pollard
I genuinely welcome the principle of the amendment and the spirit in which it has been tabled. It seeks to reinforce, in the Hansard of this debate, the position of both the Opposition and the Government: that the role should be independent. The commissioner should be able to conduct their inquiries and work separate from the functions of Government. It is precisely for that reason that we have drawn up the legislation in this way, so that the commissioner is independent. It is always helpful to place that on the record again. Should any future generations need to look at the intent of the Government at the time when this legislation was originally proposed and at our cross-party agreement that the commissioner should be able to carry out their functions without direction from the Ministry of Defence, they will be able to refer to this part of the debate and see that very clearly.
Mr Francois
I welcome the Minister’s welcome for the amendment. I hope the Committee is doing the right thing here. We tabled it because the issue cropped up a lot in the public evidence session. By the way, I thought it was extremely useful to be able to have that. When I first came to the House, we did not have such sessions before our consideration of Bills. Perhaps this is teaching an old dog new tricks, but now, having seen that procedure in action, I can understand why it was introduced.
Trust and independence cropped up so often on Tuesday, so we thought it was important to table the amendment to get some of that on the record. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and for the spirit in which he has given them. I know that the hon. Member for Colchester is quite an expert in this subject, so I take the point about the drafting; however, it was a probing amendment from the outset and we thank the Minister for putting those assurances on the record. As he says, if ever the commissioner were challenged on the point of independence, he or she would be able to refer back to this debate in the Committee Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Helen Maguire
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended timeframe for—
(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;
(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;
(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.
We have tabled amendment 6 because currently no time frame is set out in the Bill. We believe it is important for a time frame to be set out and we feel that the Government should be held to account on that. Otherwise, the process could continue for several years. We feel it is important for both the armed forces and the MOD to know exactly when the Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished and the commissioner appointed, and when the powers of the commissioner will take effect. At least setting out a time frame would have some strength.
Mr Francois
I think the amendment speaks for itself. I seem to recall that on Tuesday the Minister laid out a timeframe for the establishment of the commissioner and their office; from memory, I think he said that the intention was to have it up and running in early 2026. Perhaps, in the spirit of the hon. Lady’s amendment, he could say a bit more in his reply about the timing, and particularly about the interview process. I have a particular reason for asking that question, which I will come back to later.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for moving her amendment. This legislation is a priority for the Government. We want to do this prominently, to provide a clear signal to our people and their families that their welfare matters are important and should receive a greater focus from the Government and the Ministry of Defence and therefore from the single services. At the same time, it needs to be done correctly.
I share the hon. Lady’s eagerness to make sure that the commissioner’s role is properly established and brought forward. We have not detailed the implementation timetable in the Bill; that would not normally be necessary in primary legislation. As the Committee will be aware, there are several factors affecting the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee in pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following the passage of the Bill. Their role will be subject to a full public appointments process regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation.
We expect this process to continue in 2025. In parallel, we will be undertaking the necessary implementation to ensure a smooth set-up and transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new commissioner’s office. It is important to stress that the team in SCOAF are doing a good job, and we should ensure a smooth transition into the new function for all the people working hard to support our armed forces.
I can therefore confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026, but I would expect Opposition and perhaps Government Members to table parliamentary questions throughout to investigate the process that we are undertaking.
It is worth saying that the full public appointments process will also undertake the necessary vetting and security clearances required for this role. That will further build the trust among armed forces personnel not only that the person appointed to the role is experienced, necessary and appropriate, but that they have the necessary vetting and security clearance to undertake a role on military bases in particular. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that reassurance and withdraw her amendment.
Helen Maguire
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Last year, service morale fell to its lowest level on record, with only four in 10 of our armed forces personnel reporting being satisfied with service life. They reported that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing the decision to leave our armed forces. This Bill is a deliberate and major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand alongside them.
Clause 1 will establish and set out the functions of the Armed Forces Commissioner by inserting proposed new section 365AA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. It will also abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That is legislative language; the intent is to move it into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, but in parliamentary drafting terms the office is abolished. Other provisions of the Bill, which we will come to later, transfer the ombudsman’s functions to the new commissioner.
Subsection (2) of proposed new section 365AA will provide the commissioner with new functions to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that they face; It will also provide the commissioner with the functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) of proposed new section 365AA will give the commissioner the necessary freedoms to carry out their functions and meet their objectives, along with reference to any related restrictions. Subsection (6) introduces new schedule 14ZA, which sets out further detail on the establishment of the commissioner’s office.
Clause 1(2) will abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(3) will repeal section 365B of the Armed Forces Act, which established the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(4) introduces schedule 1, which will insert new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act, for those who want to follow it up in their bedtime reading.
Mr Francois
The Minister has summarised the clause very well. We understand the intent of the Bill. We said on Second Reading that we would be a critical friend to it, and hopefully that will play out today. Nevertheless, we support the principle of what the Government are doing, so there is no need to divide the Committee on clause 1.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Armed Forces Commissioner
Helen Maguire
I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
“3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.
3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.
3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.
3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.
3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.
3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.
As numerous hon. Members have outlined, it is incredibly important that the role of the commissioner be completely independent and be scrutinised across the parties. We feel it is important for a parliamentary Select Committee to play a role in the commissioning process. It would allow cross-party consensus and would ensure that the commissioner, whoever they may be, is truly independent and can make the right decisions and examinations as appropriate.
Mr Francois
I declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee for about seven years. Over the years, there has been a debate about the extent to which the Defence Committee and other Select Committees should have power over appointments in the relevant Department.
If I can draw a quick analogy, the United States Congress has a slightly different constitutional settlement from ours, but its Committees tend to be much more powerful than ours. They and their Appropriations Committee counterparts have what the Americans call line-item power, so they can increase or decrease the spending on a particular defence programme. Would that for one moment the Defence Committee had had that power. I see the Minister grinning quizzically at that.
Mr Francois
The Minister mentions Ajax. I did not, but as he did, we will read that into the record.
There were times when the Defence Committee would have dearly loved that power. Had we had it, certain programmes might have suffered a different fate. In parallel, there is another important difference between the American Committee system and ours.
Mr Francois
They are not directly comparable, but as I was coming on to say, the American Committees have a much stronger power over appointments. To illustrate my point, some debates in the American media are about whether the new Defence pick that Donald Trump is advocating may or may not come under some challenge during congressional appointment hearings. That issue only arises because the Committee has a stronger power. Here, there is an increasing trend that a Committee is allowed to interview people and express an opinion, but ultimately it cannot say no.
We all agree that the commissioner will be a very important appointment, for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined. Getting it right is really quite important. In extremis, if the Select Committee were to decide, for some good reason, that a particular candidate were not suitable for the role, would the Minister support the idea of its being allowed to veto the appointment? If not, how does the Minister envisage the Defence Committee playing a part in the appointment of this very important person?
Graeme Downie
Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think the difference between the American system and the British system is stark, not least because of the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this place.
As the Minister has outlined, there is obviously a role for the Defence Committee to pass an opinion. That is our convention, and I think it works very well, in addition to the scrutiny we see from Members of all parties. If that became a problem, I am sure that both Opposition and Government Members would be tabling written questions, motions and whatever else. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was clear that his Committee would look carefully at that. There is a strong difference between the American system and the British parliamentary system in that regard.
The full independent public process that will be followed for the appointment is another key difference. It is unlike the US system, which has a presidential appointment and under which there is no vetting; anyone can be appointed. We therefore have an additional stage of security, both for public and for parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that amendment 5, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment 5. As with amendment 7, it is good to be able to place on the record our intention for how this process should work.
Amendment 5 would insert a requirement for the House of Commons Defence Committee to conduct pre-appointment hearings and to state a positive or negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. The Secretary of State would be able to recommend their preferred candidate to His Majesty only following a positive opinion from the Committee.
I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Second Reading debate, during which the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government are keen for the Committee to exercise rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny of candidates to ensure that we appoint the best person to be the independent champion for the armed forces and service families. The hon. Lady’s amendment would certainly set a precedent for wider Government discussion. I suggest that her argument might best be directed in the first instance to the Cabinet Office, given its cross-Government leanings, rather than to the Ministry of Defence.
The Government have said that the pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee should be vigorous and thorough. We expect it to go above and beyond the current process, precisely because the commissioner will report their recommendations to Parliament via the national security scrub in the MOD, so their role is somewhat different from the role of other commissioners who might receive pre-appointment scrutiny from other Select Committees. Their powers are designed to be greater, so a more prominent role will be given to Parliament. We are confident that the existing practices and arrangements in Parliament are robust, that they can address any concerns that the Select Committee may have about a candidate, and that we will be able to take the Committee’s views fully into account before making a recommendation to His Majesty.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The mechanics are different from those for a preferred candidate in other Departments, in so far as the candidate will have to go through top-level security clearance and presumably enhanced developed vetting. If they do not pass enhanced developed vetting, will they still be put forward as the preferred candidate? How will the mechanics work?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member asks a fair question. We will not put forward anyone who does not pass security vetting; it is important that we place that on the record. This is a significant and prominent role. The commissioner will have access to our military bases. We do not expect, require or want them to look at anything beyond general service welfare matters, but there may be locations or people adjacent to those welfare matters that are sensitive to UK national security. That is why we have put national security powers in the Bill and why the Secretary of State has made assurances, which I am happy to repeat, that the commissioner will be security vetted. That is what service personnel and our colleagues across Government will expect. Someone who cannot pass security vetting should not be able to take up such a serious appointment in the Ministry of Defence. I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance; I hope it reassures him.
In his short few months here, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar has established himself as formidable and forensic in his tabling of parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Defence.
Luke Pollard
I am aware that there are other people in the room who table questions to us. I will choose some adjectives carefully in due course.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made is a fair one. The senior appointments process is well established across Government. We enjoy good scrutiny of the process ourselves, as part of its oversight by the structures around the Cabinet Office. We and the previous Government have both focused on that to ensure that the process produces the right people.
I hope that the additional pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee, as well as the seriousness with which the Government and the Committee take the matter, will provide even more robust scrutiny. I would be very happy, where appropriate, to respond to parliamentary questions throughout the process to reassure Members that it is being conducted in a manner that is not only timely but thorough, ahead of any pre-appointment scrutiny by the HCDC.
The spirit of the Bill is to engage Parliament more in the role of this commissioner and to ensure that parliamentarians can have just as much confidence in the role as I hope our armed forces can. The whole process is designed with that in mind. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw her amendment.
Helen Maguire
I thank the Minister for providing the reassurances that I think the Committee needs in order to ensure that there is absolute scrutiny. It is good to hear that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee. We hope that that will ensure that the commissioner who is appointed is truly independent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel, with responsibility for providing the Commissioner with advice on legal issues arising in the course of the Commissioner’s work of promoting and investigating general service welfare.”
This amendment would require the Commissioner’s staff to include a KC to provide legal advice to the Commissioner on legal issues arising in the course of their work.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) Financial assistance provided to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State must increase annually by a measure determined by the increase in the Consumer Prices Index 12-month rate published by the Office for National Statistics.”
This amendment would require the financial assistance provided to the Commissioner to increase with inflation.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out their functions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out their functions.
Mr Francois
For the convenience of the Committee, I will take amendments 9 and 10 in reverse order.
Essentially, amendment 10 is intended to ensure that the office of the commissioner is sufficiently well resourced to undertake its role effectively, independently of the Ministry of Defence. The explanatory notes to the Bill intimate that once the office is up and running, it will start off with a budget of approximately £5 million, as the Minister confirmed on Second Reading.
The Bill does not mandate a specific number of staff to assist the commissioner; it is not that prescriptive. Given that the role has a wider remit than that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, it seems likely that more staff will be required to carry out the expanded function—not least because it will now include visits to service establishments, some of which the commissioner could be empowered to conduct on an unannounced basis, subject to certain safeguards, if they thought that the issues that they were examining merited it.
The purpose of amendment 10 is to reinforce the idea that the office should be adequately resourced by mandating the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State, which is effectively the commissioner’s budget, should increase by at least real terms each year, defined using the consumer prices index measure of inflation, which is published by the Office for National Statistics. I hope that amendment 10 is relatively uncontroversial and that the Minister might even be tempted to accept it. We can but try.
Amendment 9 would mandate that at least one member of the commissioner’s staff be a King’s counsel.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the Committee an idea of the annual cost of a King’s counsel, so that we can have an idea of what percentage of the proposed budget that would be? Why he is choosing to be prescriptive about the need for this particular element of staffing? That seems to contradict earlier pushes in amendments to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. If we are appointing a commissioner, surely we should trust them to determine the configuration of their staff.
Mr Francois
There are two questions there. On the first, the honest answer is that it depends on the KC. In my limited experience, different King’s counsels tend to charge different rates. One would hope that the commissioner would employ someone who was good at their job, so yes there would be a public expenditure cost.
If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I am going to come in a moment to the exact rationale for why we have sought to mandate that at least one of the commissioner’s staff should be a qualified KC; he slightly pre-empts me. But I hope I can convince the Committee that there is a genuinely good reason for doing so and I am going to produce at least one real-world example. If that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will make some progress. Did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, sitting next to him, also seek to intervene or have I inadvertently answered her question?
Mr Francois
Okay, thank you.
We live in an increasingly litigious world, including the wider prevalence of so-called lawfare issues on the modern battlefield. Therefore it seems important to us that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice in carrying out their duties. We believe that could best be provided by a qualified King’s counsel, perhaps specialising in areas of employment law and other matters that would relate to the welfare of armed service personnel and their families.
There is a live issue in the armed forces community: if they take life, which sometimes they are required to do in the service of the country, what are the legal implications for them, maybe even decades later? The issue is generally referred to as lawfare. Let me give a specific example of why this matters, Mr Efford. I am going to refer to a case that has concluded; I reassure you and your Clerk that the sub judice rule does not apply, I believe, because the case is over.
On 10 December, the BBC reported, under the heading “Ex-lawyer spared jail over false Iraq War claims”, that
“Phil Shiner was given a two-year suspended sentence at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud relating to legal aid claims made in 2007.”
For background,
“The former boss of Public Interest Lawyers was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2017 for pursuing false torture and murder allegations against British troops.”
The article continues:
“A lengthy inquiry into wider allegations of abuse at the hands of British soldiers established ‘beyond doubt’ that all the most serious allegations had been found to be ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies’.”
According to the National Crime Agency, Mr Shiner received around £3 million towards the cost of legal aid for the cases in which he was involved.
Mr Francois
At this point, I give way—hopefully it will save the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar the trouble of tabling multiple parliamentary questions.
Graeme Downie
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to schedule 1 on page 10 of the Bill. It specifically says:
“The Secretary of State may…provide staff in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State by the Commissioner”.
My reading of that is that the commissioner, should they wish to, would be able to hire a King’s counsel for specific issues. At the same time, it would preserve the independence of the commissioner: we would not be putting anything into the Bill to make Parliament direct them, and we could make sure that independence was maintained.
Mr Francois
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his accurate reading of the legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the legislation is drafted to be facilitative. For instance—we will come to this later—it does not necessarily define exactly what are and are not “general service welfare matters”. It provides a broad remit. But for the reasons that I hope I have been able to articulate, we believe that although the schedule that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would facilitate the Armed Forces Commissioner in seeking to appoint a legal adviser, that would have a spending implication. It could be—it is not inconceivable—that some in the Ministry of Defence would baulk at that. The intention of putting the provision into the Bill is to include beyond peradventure the right of the commissioner to seek to appoint a senior legal adviser. In a sense, it does not compel the commissioner to do that, but it gives them that power very clearly.
Amanda Martin
You say that your amendment does not tell the commissioner that they should make the appointment, but it states:
“The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel”.
Since there is a “must”, what you just said is not correct. If we agree to this amendment, we are saying that the commissioner, who we want to be independent, will not have the choice of who they include in their staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned. Your amendment says “must include”.
The Chair
“You” refers to me in the Chair, not to the person opposite. Just a gentle reminder about that.
Mr Francois
The hon. Lady is right. The amendment says that the commissioner should make the appointment; I hope we have given the rationale for why we believe that is important. What sort of KC the commissioner employed, and how often they used them, would be a matter for the commissioner: they would still have some discretion and, as has been intimated, there are KCs and KCs.
But the principle of the amendment is that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice because lawfare is becoming more and more of an issue for armed forces personnel. For the sake of brevity, I will not read into the record a very good article that appeared in The Spectator about why people are leaving the Special Air Service because of the issue. It is a problem for retention in the armed forces, particularly in certain units, and this is an attempt to acknowledge that.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
To refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, the amendment does say that the commissioner’s staff “must” include a King’s counsel. That would effectively tie the hands of the commissioner, firmly setting that budget. I would much rather that they had flexibility, so that they could choose who they wanted to serve within their staff; should they need a KC, they would be very welcome to get one. Including that they “must” would eat that budget, which could be used elsewhere if needed.
Mr Francois
I understand the hon. Lady’s question, and I do not want to get into an “angels on a pinhead” argument, but that member of staff could be part-time. It could be that on the staff of the commissioner is a qualified KC, but only brought into action when there is a specific legal aspect to be examined—they would not necessarily have to sit in their office five days a week waiting for a case to come in. If there was no work, then they would not necessarily be employed.
I accept that perhaps we should have put the words “part or full-time” into the amendment, but the key thing is that the commissioner would have access to a King’s counsel, even on a part-time basis, to deal with complaints that have a specific legal aspect, including aspects of lawfare. We did not mandate in the amendment that it had to be a full-time role.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about whether the role would be full-time, part-time or maybe just a few hours a week. But the fundamental issue for me is that the more restrictions or stipulations we mandate, the more we fundamentally influence the independence of the role, which was part of our open discussion on Tuesday. The more amendments, rules and procedures that we dictate, the more we weaken independence. Does he recognise that concern?
Mr Francois
I do, but I have a contrary concern. People are leaving the armed forces in greater numbers than are joining. The other day, the Minister said— he will correct me if I have this wrong—that for every 100 who join, 130 are leaving.
Mr Francois
The Minister is nodding. We have a problem: our armed forces are shrinking. That is not necessarily purely for budgetary reasons; we are not going to get into the 2.5% of GDP discussion—I would love to, but I do not think the Chair would thank me for it. More are leaving than are joining and there are a number of reasons why. As a former Armed Forces Minister, I was commissioned by a previous Prime Minister to write a report on why people leave. It was called “Stick or Twist?”, because that essentially encapsulated the dilemma that service personnel and their families face. By the way, the decision to leave is usually a family decision—it is a kind of kitchen table conversation.
The overwhelming reason why they leave, as we have said, is the pressure of service life on family life. One reason why quite a few personnel are leaving now, however, is that they are worried about the legal implications of the work that they do and, bluntly, whether the Government have their back. That is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. If the commissioner is there to ensure the welfare of service personnel and their families, along the lines that the Minister articulated very well in the debate on clause 1 stand part, they are going to need some kind of legal capability to investigate those sorts of issues.
I take the points made by Government Members, but we are seeking to ensure that, whether it be full time or part time, the commissioner has the necessary legal firepower, for want of a better word. This comes back to the whole debate about trust; the service personnel need to be convinced that, if they have a worry or issue about lawfare, the commissioner is equipped to deal with it effectively. That is the spirit of amendment 10. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the issue is becoming an increasing worry for service personnel. Again, for the sake of brevity do not get me going on Northern Ireland veterans this morning. But this is a problem, and that is why the amendment was drafted.
I do not want to try the Committee’s patience, so, to summarise, we believe there is a broader issue here about the whole effect of lawfare on modern warfare—the effect it is having on both the recruitment and the retention of His Majesty’s armed forces. Having tabled the amendment to provoke a debate on that issue, and how the commissioner might help, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to a genuinely well-meaning suggestion.
Helen Maguire
On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the amendments as they give me the chance to speak about a number of issues. I first turn to amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. He said that the purpose of the amendment was to require the commissioner’s staff to include a King’s counsel to provide legal advice to the commissioner. I agree that the provision of quality legal advice to the commissioner is essential, and having the facility in house may well be something that a commissioner will want to specify when setting up their own office. I think it is right, however, that the commissioner should be able to make their own judgment about what type and what level of legal support they may require.
It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the commissioner looks at general service welfare matters and not the conduct of military operations, which I realise he is familiar with. I will come on to the other points that he raised subsequently, but it is worth saying that welfare matters are the commissioner’s main remit.
Mr Francois
If you were one of the service personnel who was put through hell by Phil Shiner, that would be a welfare matter for you and your family. I could read into the record stories of stress, worry and angst that armed forces personnel have had to go through, sometimes for years, at the hands of Phil Shiner and his law firm, so let us not be over-semantic about it, Minister. For many personnel and their families, this was agonising. It jolly well is a matter of service welfare, because of the effect that it had on many people, many of whom subsequently left the armed forces, effectively in disgust. It really is a matter of welfare, and that is why we tabled the amendment.
Luke Pollard
I did say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would come back to those points, and I will do so, rather than responding immediately to his intervention.
A particular commissioner may wish to undertake an inquiry that involves many issues requiring regular and suitably senior legal input. In other circumstances, however, where a commissioner’s work is more routine in nature, it seema unnecessary to compel them to keep a costly KC on their books when other options may be more appropriate.
I should say to the right hon. Gentleman, as someone who is new to opposition—sadly, I was not new to opposition for some time—that making spending commitments is a dangerous sport. As a quick bit of maths, let us assume that the KC is full-time, that they are reasonably priced at £5,000 a day, and that they bill only for working days. Now, 260 working days a year at £5,000 a day is £1.3 million of billable time a year, or 24% of the estimated budget of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which, as we have set out in the explanatory notes, is £6.5 million, the commitment for an entire Parliament.
It is incumbent on us, in the spirit of creating an independent Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, to give the decisions on what staffing should look like to the commissioner so that they can undertake the staffing structure that is appropriate for what they have to say. However, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent the commissioner from agreeing with the Secretary of State a policy for staffing the office that could include a legal adviser. Indeed, I suspect staffing policy would not necessarily need to go into that level of detail; it would be more about the overall numbers, costs and specific terms of service.
Agreement of staffing policy with the Secretary of State is essential to ensure that the commissioner does not set out a staffing requirement that is disproportionate to the nature of the work being undertaken. It is not a way of preventing the commissioner from accessing the advice that they need.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
If the commissioner were to come to the Secretary of State and say that they would like members of the armed forces seconded permanently to their staff, what would the Secretary of State’s reaction be?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair question. As part of establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, it may be appropriate for the commissioner to say that they would like a certain level of military expertise, be it serving or in a veteran capacity. The commissioner could have that conversation with the Secretary of State. I do not think that we would immediately volunteer or immediately deny—that would be based on the recommendations of the commissioner and the dialogue about where that sits—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the amendment that we are making in the Bill to remove the requirement for an officer to make a decision. In one respect, we are seeking to remove military roles from the SCOAF function that can be done by a civilian. It is appropriate to ensure that if any military support is given to any part of the wider MOD family, we make the correct decision about whether it should be a military or civilian role, so we can ensure that we use the military in roles where they have the biggest impact in respect of our national security. However, I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised the issue of lawfare. The Government recognise that the large proportion of allegations targeted at our service personnel in Iraq were without foundation, and we acknowledge the importance of protecting our people from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner. The judgment by the court shows that Phil Shiner spread falsehoods against our brave armed forces, and the Ministry of Defence submitted evidence of his abuse to the legal system, which contributed to his being struck off. The Government are renewing the contract with those who serve and have served, and that includes protecting our personnel from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner.
The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the ongoing inquiry in the High Court into matters that are either the ones related or near to the ones related. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on them now, but I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion, which he knows I share, for ensuring we look after our people better than they have been looked after to date.
I turn to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I share her intention of ensuring adequate provision in the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Secretary of State will have an obligation under proposed new section 340IA(7) to
“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”
and to give them any “reasonable assistance” that they require. That will ensure that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively.
Should the commissioner feel that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise the matter in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism will provide the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. However, it will be for the commissioner to determine the shape and structure of any staffing or budget spend.
As the shadow Minister has confirmed, we estimate in the explanatory notes that the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner, based on careful scrutiny of the work of our friends in the German armed forces commissioner’s office, will be approximately £4.5 million to £5.5 million a year. That is a significant increase on the funding for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which at present is roughly £1.8 million a year.
While being wholly independent of the MOD, the commissioner will be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both the Treasury and the MOD in the commitment to financial resources—something I think we would expect de minimis on a cross-party basis. We heard from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman on Tuesday that this is a common model and works well, so including a commitment to ensure sufficient funding and practical assistance, per amendment 3, or increasing it in line with inflation, per amendment 10, is not necessary. Amendment 3 in particular may introduce a level of subjectivity into the legislation that would be difficult to measure.
I welcome—I think—the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford’s rejection of austerity budgets and the commitment to increase public funding in line with inflation. I suspect that he has not quite thought through the full implications of that across all areas of Government spending. None the less, the slow process of rejecting the austerity politics that I so know him for is interesting. I welcome that movement.
What is certain is that the functions in the Bill provide a format for the Secretary of State and the commissioner to have a reasonable conversation about the budget. The budget that we are setting represents a considerable increase and is modelled to deliver a service that involves not only a continuation of the SCOAF functions, but the investigations and the wider visits portfolio that has been mentioned. We feel that that is sufficient, but I suspect that any Member of Parliament who feels that the budget is insufficient, based on the reports tabled by the Armed Forces Commissioner in their annual reports as opposed to thematic reports, will be able to ask suitably challenging questions of the Government of the day about ensuring that staffing levels and financial support are right, just as we would expect for access and the implementation of recommendations. On that basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Francois
I will respond in kind to what the Minister says. As he will recall, his calculation was that even if the KC that we have been debating conceptually were full-time—we can argue about the rate—it might cost about £1.3 million a year. We never stipulated that it would be a full-time post; I think the Committee has explored. The essence of amendment 9 is that the commissioner would have access to high-level legal advice. Even if it were £1.3 million, given that our policy going into the election was to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, I think we could have found £1.3 million within that number. The Minister is the one with the challenge, because he does not have a date for 2.5%. If he ever gets one, we would all like to hear it. I think we could have afforded the post, even if it had been full-time—and we did not mandate that it had to be.
Amanda Martin
My understanding is that the last time that the defence budget was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government, and that in the 14 years under the Conservatives there was not a 2.5% budget.
Mr Francois
That is correct, and under the Tories in the mid-1990s it was well over 3%. The problem is that a lot happened in the 14 years, including a war in Ukraine. That is why we probably need to spend 2.5% as quickly as possible.
Even if the Minister’s calculation is correct, by the time a senior NCO in the British Army gets to the rank of WO2, the King—or the Queen, before him—will probably have spent the best part of £1 million on training them. If they then leave, perhaps because they have had a very bad experience at the hands of the likes of Mr Shiner, that is £1 million of investment that has just walked out the door.
To be fair, the Minister understands the pressure. According to some figures that I received in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the strength of the British Regular Army is 71,300. This was in October. The establishment strength—the book strength, or what it is meant to be on paper—is 73,000. It was 72,500, but then there was an add-back of another 500, partly for the two Rangers Battalions. The British Regular Army is now nearly 2,000 soldiers short of what it should be, even on paper. Unfortunately, the trend is that more people are leaving than joining.
I am not highlighting that point in order to say that the whole lawfare issue is the only reason that people are leaving the British armed forces. That is not my argument, but it is one reason, and it is likely to get worse unless the Government do something about it. That includes doing something about the so-called Northern Ireland legacy Act.
I hope I have made the point sufficiently this morning; I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has acknowledged it and dealt with it. As I think the point has been made, I will not press amendment 9 or 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Schedule 1, by inserting proposed new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006, primarily outlines the procedural aspects of the commissioner’s role and functions, including their legal status and terms of appointment, as well as disqualification and the delegation of functions. It encompasses the commissioner’s length of term, staffing arrangements and funding.
It is important that we set the parameters for the Armed Forces Commissioner while ensuring sufficient the impartiality and independence of their role. There are several provisions in place to ensure that this is the case, including paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 14ZA, which establishes the commissioner as a corporation sole, setting them up to be legally separate from the MOD.
Although paragraph 3 of proposed new schedule 14ZA outlines that the commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, it should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, on Second Reading the Defence Secretary stated that he was keen for the House of Commons Defence Committee to exercise the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny as well, and I think he genuinely means that. We expect that to be robust, and I look forward to witnessing those sessions in due course. We need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion, and the Secretary of State will certainly take close note of the Select Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.
Paragraph 4 of the proposed new schedule disqualifies a civil servant or member of the regular or reserve forces from being the commissioner. This is to ensure a fresh and independent perspective.
Under paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule, to ensure both ministerial and parliamentary oversight, the commissioner must provide written notice to the Secretary of State should they wish to resign. Although the Secretary of State may dismiss the commissioner if specific criteria are fulfilled, they must specify their reasons for doing so via a statement to the relevant House of Parliament. For the benefit of new Members, that means that if the Defence Secretary is a Commons Minister, it would go to the Commons, and if they are a Lords Minister, it would go to the Lords. None the less, it would be accountable to Parliament.
David Reed
I seek clarification on one of the points the Minister made about clearances, as I have not heard it in what he has said. Which level of clearance will the Armed Forces Commissioner be required to hold, and will the role be contingent on them holding it? If they cannot maintain clearance, will they lose their job?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to write to the hon. Member with our expectation of which specific clearance type would be required, but on the second part of his question about what happens if someone loses their clearance, it will be a condition of the role that they would be subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and require the necessary clearance, and in such circumstances they would not be fulfilling the terms and conditions of their role. I hope that gives the hon. Member suitable assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2
Commissioner’s functions in relation to service complaints
Mr Mark Francois
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
“(2) Once the functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman become functions of the Commissioner, the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints in the same manner as they were previously investigated by the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”
This amendment would clarify that the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints, as the Service Complaints Ombudsman did, as well as investigating general issues and publishing thematic reports.
Mr Francois
The Committee will be pleased to know that I think we can deal with this fairly briefly. The amendment was tabled prior to the public evidence session on Tuesday, when I sought some clarity on something the Minister said on Second Reading regarding the extent to which the Armed Forces Commissioner will be prepared to take up individual complaints on behalf of service personnel or their families who have already exhausted the MOD’s complaints process. The Service Complaints Ombudsman currently has the ability to do this at their discretion.
Speaking to the amendment gives me the opportunity to commend the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, for the very good job that she and her staff have accomplished in virtually clearing the considerable backlog of complaints that were sitting in her in-tray. She told us on Tuesday that they now have only— from memory—30 individual cases left, all of which are live and actively being looked into. Given the history, as the Minister will know—I see he is nodding— this is a remarkable achievement, which drew praise from the Committee at the time that should be briefly repeated here.
If I may slightly cheekily say so—I promise I have not spoken to Mariette about this—when asked on Tuesday she indicated that she might be minded to apply for the post when it is advertised. I would chance my arm as far as to say that, based on her track record to date as Service Complaints Ombudsman, at the very least I think she should deserve an interview. It strikes me that she would be a strong candidate for the new role, although that will ultimately be a matter for the interview panel and, as we have discussed, for the Defence Committee, at least in part.
When we questioned the Minister on whether the Armed Forces Commissioner would have the power to continue to deal with individual complaints that had exhausted the MOD’s own complaints process, in addition to conducting the wider thematic investigations envisaged in the Bill, he confirmed that indeed they would. That is reassuring, but I would like to give the Minister the opportunity, should he wish, to add anything more about how he sees the process of dealing with individual complaints working in practice under the Bill.
Luke Pollard
I echo the shadow Minister’s praise for the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman in reducing the backlog. Can I go further and thank all her team as well? We have seen a whole-team approach, and she has been able to marshal and deliver a much-improved service that is a helpful building block for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. I will not be drawn on who the Armed Forces Commissioner should be, for obvious reasons, but we would expect someone senior, with an ability to deliver, to take on that role after a proper appointments process has taken place.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment on how the commissioner will investigate individual service complaints. I will address his amendment and clause 2 together. The Bill already makes provision for the existing functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, set out in part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006—including those that relate to the investigation of individual service complaints—to be transferred to the new commissioner. The amendment is therefore not necessary.
To reassure the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s functions and workload will be absorbed by the new commissioner’s office, and implementation work will continue in parallel with the passage of the Bill to ensure the seamless transition of all cases—new, active and closed—to the commissioner. There will be no interruption to Service Complaints Ombudsman service users during this process, and the Bill makes provision for transitionary arrangements to be put in place if necessary. The Bill abolishes the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so it is imperative that its functions be transferred properly to the new Armed Forces Commissioner. Furthermore, the new commissioner’s remit will be much broader than that of the ombudsman, and they will be able to proactively launch investigations into issues faced by service personnel and their families.
On the shadow Minister’s specific question, going a level below the detail I set out, it will be a matter for the commissioner as to how they choose to investigate. However, the broad understanding is that, as well as taking on the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions, the commissioner will seek to receive views from armed forces personnel and their families. They will then be able to make a decision or look at areas for deeper thematic reviews. I would expect there to be a certain level of correspondence on issues, but it will be up to the individual commissioner to decide how best to resource that and what procedures, policies and thresholds need to apply. That will be a matter for the commissioner rather than me as a Minister to set out. I hope on that basis that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured and will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Francois
I did assure the Committee that we would deal with this briefly. There has been a purpose to this brief debate, not least in placing on the record our praise and admiration for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman. That may or may not be a factor in any future interview. With that hopefully achieved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Procedure for making service complaints
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Clause 3 amends section 340B(2)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than the function needing to be carried out by an officer. The clause will allow civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the armed forces is admissible in the service complaints system. Currently, specified officers exist in each of the services and are responsible for deciding whether a statement of complaint is admissible as a service complaint.
Let me explain the admissibility process: a statement of complaint is not admissible as a service complaint if, first, the same complaint has been made before; secondly, it is about an excluded matter as set out in legislation; thirdly, it has been submitted outside the required time limits; or fourthly, the complaint is not from a serving or former service person. The admissibility decision therefore does not require skills or experience specific to military officers, but the way the legislation is interpreted often precludes civilians from undertaking this task. This clause makes a small, technical amendment that will make the service complaints system more streamlined by allowing any competent person to deal with a complaint, rather than just a military officer.
Mr Francois
I have one question. We understand the reason for the clause and, as the Minister has made plain, the Bill amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, so the amendment is to that legislation. We understand why the Government have changed “officer” to “person”; will the Minister give an assurance that such persons could include the immediate family of a member of the armed forces? I ask because sometimes members of the armed forces are reluctant to complain, but their family feel very strongly that they should. Without wishing to start any rows within a household, will the Minister put it on the record that if the circumstances merited it, a civilian who is a member of the immediate family of a service person could go to the Armed Forces Commissioner if they were very worried about their loved one’s welfare? If he could give that assurance on the record, we need not detain the Committee much longer.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. It is important to distinguish between the different roles of the commissioner. The clause makes an amendment specifically in relation to the service complaints process, rather than the broader functions we are adding to the Service Complaints Ombudsman role to create the commissioner.
There are certain provisions, as set out in the Armed Forces Act, that mean that only a serving member of personnel or a veteran raising an issue from the time of their service can complain in the service complaints system. We are, however, expanding the provision outside that provision for welfare matters that sit outside the service complaints system. In that situation, family members will be able to raise an issue or a concern with the commissioner, but that is not a service complaint. I reassure the shadow Minister that that function will still be held by the current rules.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden.)
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 12th December 2024
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 December 2024 - (12 Dec 2024)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome Committee members to this afternoon’s sitting. I will not tell you at the beginning what train I am hoping to catch.
Clause 4
Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and other related benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces.”
This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits in their investigations of general service welfare matters.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I hope we shall not inconvenience you too much with regard to your journey back.
The purpose of amendment 12 is to confirm in the Bill that pensions would be among the topics that the commissioner can investigate under the heading of “general service welfare matters”. This is obviously a matter of keen interest to service personnel and their families, and having good pension provision for serving in the armed forces has always been an aid to both recruitment and particularly retention, especially for non-commissioned officers and officers as they progress in their careers.
I have often felt—and I include the time when I served as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence—that we have not really done enough to successfully market the value of military pensions as part of the wider service offer in order to convince people to join and then remain in the armed forces. In my experience, even many armed forces personnel did not appreciate that they had one of the few pension schemes across the entire public sector that was effectively non-contributory. In other words, their employer paid a contribution into their pensions, but they did not. In comparison, the last time I checked, most serving police officers pay something like 14% of their salary into their pension, whereas serving personnel still do not have to pay anything. Historically, the pension has always been—certainly as people become more experienced, get older and think more about their pension provision, much like the rest of the population—a vital tool in keeping people in.
I would like to raise with the Minister one particularly pressing pensions matter, which provides a classic example of the sort of issue that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be empowered to investigate. In essence, it relates to the potential liability for inheritance tax, relating to death in service lump sum payments. This follows on, unfortunately, from the IHT changes announced in the Budget.
I will refer to a briefing that was recently provided to me by Major General Neil Marshall OBE, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, which, I hope the Minister and Committee will accept, is the absolute gold standard expert on any matter relating to forces pensions—the sort of Office for Budget Responsibility of armed forces pensions. The AFP note summarises the issue as follows:
“Death in service benefits affect those who die prematurely. While benefits pay to spouses or civil partners will be unaffected by IHT, we understand that under the Government’s proposals, death in service lump sum payments for service personnel who die in the service and are not married or in a civil partnership would be liable to IHT. This would lead to military personnel being disadvantaged compared with their civilian counterparts”,
not least because their civilian counterparts would be
“able to place such benefits in trust and therefore outside of the deceased’s estate.”
The note continues to say that the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2005 and subsequently the armed forces pension scheme 2015—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, as they are colloquially known—
“saw eligible partners recognised as dependents and therefore eligible for benefits.”
Under AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, personnel do not need to be married; they need to have an established partner. The note continues:
“This was in addition to married couples and those in civil partnerships. This was a welcome reflection of societal changes over the past 30 years or so; introducing a potential inheritance tax charge on death in service benefits for those military people who are not married or in a civil partnership is at odds with the extant policy.”
To put in this in layman’s English, because in my experience anything to do with pensions does tend to be quite complicated: if Corporal Thomas Atkins of the 1st Battalion the Lone Shire Regiment were walking down his high street tomorrow—not on active service—and unfortunately dropped dead of a heart attack, even if he had a long-term partner and perhaps three children but was not married or in a civil partnership with that partner, then his family would be liable for a potential inheritance tax charge on his death in service benefit. Not only is there the risk of the financial penalty—I will come on to a case study in a moment to illustrate the dilemma—but the bureaucracy could result in payouts from the estate being delayed while the liability for IHT is being calculated. The Forces Pension Society summarise the issue in its very good briefing note as follows:
“At a time of extreme vulnerability, these lump sums need to be paid promptly, as they currently are. If death in service benefits become subject to IHT there will be a delay to the benefit being paid both while the estate is assessed for IHT and while the amount of IHT attributable to the DIS [death in service] benefit is assessed and the scheme administrator (Veterans UK) pays the tax charge.”
As the briefing note then goes on to explain:
“Many who would not previously have been caught with an IHT liability will find themselves in a very bureaucratic process that will slow down the already lengthy process of sorting out the financial affairs of an individual at what is a very difficult time.”
The Forces Pension Society gave several examples of how this could affect personnel in practice. For the sake of brevity, I will just give one, which I hope is sufficient to illustrate the point. Take the case of an OR-9 equivalent—a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned rank structure. This individual has a partner to whom they are unmarried, and on death leaves an estate worth £400,000 and death in service benefits of £248,292—four times their salary of £62,000. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pension assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, if the DIS benefits were included in the estate, that would increase the estate’s value to £648,292. The IHT liability will therefore increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents an increase of around 330%.
In fairness, we on the Conservative Benches suspect that this is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. We do not believe that the Government deliberately brought in these changes with the specific intention of targeting armed forces personnel. There is a debate about farmers and other groups in society, but I am focusing today on armed forces personnel and their families. To be clear, we are not saying that the Government did this deliberately in order to damage those people’s interests. Nevertheless, the default position is that they would suffer in the ways I have just outlined, unless something is done. Indeed, the Forces Pension Society summed up the problem as follows:
“We believe the Government has made an error and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs counter to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. The situation is recoverable should they act now.”
We on the Conservative Benches support that plea.
I hope that when the Minister replies, he will assure us that, following the consultation on these proposals—which will be overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury, not by the MOD, because it is a consultation on the IHT changes in general—he is confident that armed forces personnel and their families will be exempted from any potential inheritance tax liabilities on death in service payments, whether or not those armed forces personnel die in active service. I hope that I have managed to explain that in terms that the Committee can follow.
Mr Francois
I will in a moment.
I hope that, as an act of good will, the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment to remove any doubt about the ability of the Armed Forces Commissioner—who, as we heard this morning, will end up being appointed in early 2026, a year before these proposed changes are due to come into effect—to look in detail at this issue. Given the rightful concerns of the Forces Pension Society, I must tell the Minister that I am minded to press the amendment to a Division if he does not do the right thing.
Having hopefully explained what is admittedly a slightly complex issue, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, but before I sit down, I will gladly take the hon. Lady’s intervention.
Juliet Campbell
In addressing welfare and support for families, the shadow Minister has focused on pensions, but what are his thoughts on wider issues such as childcare and education, which we should also be thinking about?
Mr Francois
I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point, for which I thank her. There are a number of wider issues—one of them is education, and particularly special educational needs—and I will touch on those in the clause stand part debate, if it pleases the Chair. The hon. Lady may recall that I gave the Minister a pretty fair heads-up about that on Tuesday. I tabled the amendment so that we could raise the specific issue of pensions, which is a concern for armed forces personnel, rather than discussing it under clause stand part.
To drive that point home before I conclude my remarks, Larisa Brown, the excellent defence editor of The Times, has just published an article online entitled, “Call to spare troops’ loved ones from inheritance tax trap.” Its subheading is: “Death in service payments for unmarried members of the armed forces who die off-duty will be subjected to the levy under plans announced in the budget”. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is very much a live issue as of about 14 minutes ago.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
In a moment. Having raised this issue with the Minister, who has a look on his face that says, “This wasn’t in my folder,” I very much hope that he will, being an artful chap, seek some inspiration and extemporise by saying something encouraging so that we do not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I was going to conclude my remarks there, but I do not want to be accused of curtailing the debate, so I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Amanda Martin
Although we—and, I think, service personnel—recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about pensions in relation to those specific incidents, I will make three points if I may. First, the amendment states that
“A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions”.
That would give a rather larger weighting to the direction of the commissioner, potentially over the direction of service personnel and their families. I talk to service personnel in my city of Portsmouth, which is the home of the Royal Navy, and they might prefer for it to state that a general service welfare matter may include issues relating to housing, postings, their professional careers, their rules of engagement and access to local services.
Including that single provision would direct the commissioner and would not allow for issues to come up from personnel and the grassroots—from our people on the ground. Should a matter come forward as an issue they want to raise, obviously it is in the gift of the commissioner to do so, but actually the amendment would limit things. From the conversations I have had with personnel in my area, this is not at the top of their list. They would not like to be directed on what they can bring forward to the commissioner.
The Chair
Order. I remind the Committee that interventions are supposed to be just that: reasonably brief and to the point. If Members want to make a longer contribution, they should indicate that they would like to contribute in the general debate.
Mr Francois
I will try to be brief. This amendment in no way precludes the raising of any of the other issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. It does not say, for instance, that the commissioner can look only at pensions—not at all. However, it does specifically make it clear that the commissioner is empowered to look at pensions, because they kick in, by definition, when armed forces personnel leave the service. Some people might try to argue that pensions are not a general service welfare issue because personnel are no longer serving, but they very much are—not least because, as the Minister will know, they very much affect retention. They might also affect recruitment slightly, but pensions are certainly very important in retention. Sometimes they are the overwhelming reason that people stay in the service, depending on their personal financial circumstances.
I see the hon. Lady’s point, but all this is doing is making it very clear, beyond peradventure, that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit would extend to pensions. I admit that it also gave us an opportunity to raise this very important issue, which the Forces Pension Society raised with me a little while ago. When I met its representatives, they were genuinely worried about this, and my amendment was an opportunity to put the issue on the table and on the Government’s radar, as it were. That is what I was seeking to achieve.
Luke Akehurst
On one level, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for finding an opportunity to raise this issue in the context of the Bill Committee. It is one for which I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I represent a constituency with a large number of retired service personnel. On the other hand, it is a little cheeky to use a Bill Committee to raise a substantive policy issue that could have been raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps in Defence questions.
Luke Akehurst
I am sorry—I will be as brief as I can. I am getting used to being brief. What led the right hon. Gentleman to suspect that this issue might be in any way excluded? I hope the Minister will clarify that the Bill is designed to be permissive and broad, and to allow the commissioner to define what a general welfare issue might be. I do not think there is any attempt to exclude—
Mr Francois
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very pithy intervention. He pays me a back-handed compliment. How outrageous that His Majesty’s Opposition should try to raise a difficult issue in the middle of a Bill Committee; if I were to go back through the annals of Hansard down the centuries, I am sure there would be some precedent for that.
This was a timely opportunity, if I can put it like that, to table the issue. There is a consultation coming up, and I suspect, looking at his face, that the Minister was not really au fait with this issue—I am not being rude to him—but he is now, and I will be very interested to hear what he has to say.
The key point here is that death in service benefits have traditionally been payable if someone dies while in the armed forces or in the service of the Crown, whether or not they were on active service. A person who died back at home with their family would still qualify for the money. Under the armed forces pension scheme, they would still qualify if they had a regular partner. Under the Bill, however, because we are now dealing with the inheritance tax rules, unless the individual is married or in a civil partnership the exemptions do not apply. That is the critical point. I suspect the Ministry of Defence had not picked up on it. The Forces Pension Society, which exists for exactly this kind of eventuality, has done what it says on the tin and raised an issue that could materially affect armed forces pensions. In some ways, I am acting as their factotum this afternoon in tabling the issue.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I do not think it is, actually. This is important, because as written—without the amendment—the provision refers to a matter that
“arises in connection with ongoing service of persons subject to service law”.
As soon as someone is killed, therefore, they are not within the purview of the Armed Forces Commissioner and nor are their families, because there is no more ongoing service. Is that not the point?
Mr Francois
I think it is. Those who have left the service, are by definition no longer subject to service law; they are subject to the laws of the country like any other civilians, as that is what they have become, albeit they are civilians with the special status of being a veteran, which we should respect. But they are no longer serving in His Majesty’s armed forces. The amendment would allow the commissioner to expand their remit little bit in order to look at pension-related issues, which are something that armed forces personnel regard as part of their general service welfare. When they are taking that stick or twist decision, weighing up the pluses and minuses of whether to stay or leave—particularly if they have been in the service for some years and have accumulated a reasonable pension pot—that is definitely something that they will take into account.
Mr Francois
In a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, and he knows the challenge that all commanding officers face in retaining personnel, particularly experienced personnel. It is part of that stick or twist decision, which is why we believe that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to look at it. The amendment would remove any doubt that they had the ability to do that, while—to come back to the point made by hon. Member for Broxtowe—in no way precluding their being able to look at anything else.
Luke Akehurst
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will try to be more pithy this time. I thought there was a separate proposal for a veterans’ commissioner. Should not matters that affect former service personnel after the point when technically they have ceased to serve, or their families if they are deceased, sit in the purview of a veterans’ commissioner, not the Armed Forces Commissioner?
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because if he looks down the list of amendments, he will see that new clause 2 talks specifically about veterans’ commissioners. Perhaps at that point he might want to intervene on me again, as long as it does not mean Mr Betts misses his train.
I hope that I have made my point. I shall be interested to hear what other Members in the Committee think, and particularly what the Minister’s view is.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I have four quick responses. First, it is good to know that there is a journalist watching or listening to these proceedings. I wish her all the best with the article she will no doubt follow this debate with. Secondly, being artful and cheeky are compliments on both sides of this divide, so I think we can take those as benefits.
Turning to the substantive points, the first is on placing a specific category of general welfare matter on the face of the Bill. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that I say it should be for the commissioner to decide which matters they consider to be a general service welfare matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned, it is quite possible that there will be people who feel strongly about childcare, others about the state of their housing, and others still about a range of service matters. It is for the Government to set up the powers of the commissioner so they can make a decision free from the influence of Ministers on what that should be.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I resist the temptation to specify one measure in the Bill and not others. The danger of trying to have an exhaustive list is that there will always be matters excluded from it, no matter how declaratory or helpful is the intention of putting certain measures on the face of the Bill. I assure the shadow Minister that pensions, which are of course extremely important, are not excluded from the scope of the commissioner. If they are considered to be a general service welfare issue, pensions can already be investigated without having to specify them on the face of the Bill. I hope he understands that his amendment is unnecessary to achieve that.
On the second issue the shadow Minister raised, he is, I hope, familiar with the answer to his written question given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People, who replied:
“Inheritance tax on pensions is subject to a technical consultation which runs between 30 October 2024 and 22 January 2025. The Ministry of Defence will follow legislation as per Government proposals.”
I commend the shadow Minister for raising an issue like this, but he will understand that a proper consultation by the Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is under way, and it is for them to undertake that. He has placed the issue on record here and separately, in his written question to my ministerial colleague. I encourage him to share the experiences he has raised with my ministerial colleague who looks after armed forces pensions, so he can look further into that. I entirely commend him for his artful cheekiness in raising it in this Committee.
These are precisely the issues that the commissioner should have the power to investigate and, based on the Bill in front of us, will have the power to investigate, but I do not think it is for any one of us to specify which issues, because that constrains the independence of the commissioner. We spent this morning talking about the importance of reinforcing the independence of the commissioner. This afternoon, we should continue that argument and not seek to direct the commissioner through a declaratory addition to the Bill about one area. The commissioner will be able to look at pensions as a general service welfare matter, as they see fit. I suspect, given the shadow Minister’s energy, that he will seek to raise the issue further.
Regarding pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel veterans to raise complaints through a process called the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision makers within the Defence Business Services authority, and if people are unhappy, they can appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman. I recognise the shadow Minister’s strength of feeling on this. Notwithstanding his specific issue, which is worthy of being raised on the Floor of the House, I hope he will understand why I resist the idea of having a declaratory point about one particular area, as in his amendment. As such, I ask him to withdraw his amendment, but also to keep in contact with my ministerial colleague, who will be able to look into this matter in further detail.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for his compliment about my “artful cheekiness”. I am rather hoping that the Whip will have written that down. Again, quoting from Larisa Brown’s article,
“It is understood that inheritance tax would apply to service personnel who are killed while off duty, for example if they are driving to and from work.”
She also includes a comment from a spokesman from the Forces Pension Society, who said they believed it was an “unintended consequence”— we are trying to be fair to the Government—but added,
“For the military, death is an occupational risk, so we also believe this is a breach of the armed forces covenant, which says that service personnel should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their service.”
I understand what the Minister has said, and I know there is a technical consultation, but this is important not just to us and to the Forces Pension Society; it will genuinely concern armed forces personnel and their families.
Luke Pollard
I neglected to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. If a member of the armed services dies, they are no longer able to access the commissioner because of their death. However, we are deliberately introducing secondary legislation that will define bereaved families to enable them to access the commissioner. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, in the circumstances that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is talking about, the families of those affected will still be able to raise an issue with the commissioner. The wording of that secondary legislation is being prepared by the Ministry of Defence and will be published in draft form as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend and I are grateful for that clarification. None the less, we need to put down a marker. We need to make very plain to the Government—not just the MOD, but the Treasury, because it will be a Treasury consultation and it is a Treasury tax—that we regard this point as very important and that we hope and believe that the Government should reverse this measure.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Francois
No. On that basis, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Betts. If I could record for posterity that neither of the two Liberal Democrats assigned to the Committee are here at the moment. In fairness, one has a conflicting obligation in the Chamber; the other has a reason we do not know—it could be a family reason. For the record, the Liberal Democrats were not here to vote on this.
The Chair
I do not think that is a point for the Chair, but it has obviously been put on the record.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Luke Pollard
Clause 4 inserts proposed new sections 340IA, 340IB and 340LA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. Taken in order, these new sections enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter, to have powers of entry to certain Ministry of Defence sites, and to report and make recommendations in relation to their general service welfare investigations.
The commissioner will be in a unique position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our armed forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and therefore the public a range of issues faced by service personnel—whether that is accommodation or retention, pensions, as we have just debated, or childcare—and provide holistic recommendations. That can only be positive for service people and will provide greater transparency and accountability in defence.
Proposed new section 340IA, when inserted into the 2006 Act, will enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter. The intent of this section is to ensure a scope broad enough to capture issues that may have been brought to the commissioner’s attention through oversight of the service complaints system, but also issues that can be raised directly by service personnel and their families, provided it relates in some way to the serviceperson in question and their service.
Subsection (2) states that a general service welfare matter is any matter which might, in the opinion of the commissioner, materially affect the welfare of service personnel and their families where those issues have arisen as a result of the relevant service person’s ongoing service. Members of the Committee will be able to see that that gives a very broad interpretation power to the commissioner to be able to make a decision about what falls as a general service welfare matter. As such, specifying particular issues in the Bill is unnecessary. “Materially affect” is not defined, but its inclusion ensures that a matter must be sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation.
Subsection (3) requires the commissioner to consider a request from any person subject to service law, or a relevant family member, to carry out an investigation into a general service welfare matter. However, that does not preclude the commissioner from considering a request made by someone else if they wished to, provided it falls into the scope of a general service welfare matter.
Subsections (4) and (5) exclude certain matters that cannot be investigated under this section, but still allow the commissioner to investigate general service welfare issues that may have been brought to their attention in connection with a particular service complaint, service inquiry, criminal investigation or proceedings, or public inquiry. Additionally, any “specified” matter can be excluded from investigation by the commissioner. These matters can be set out in secondary legislation, but must relate to national security or the safety of any person.
Subsection (7) places a requirement on the Secretary of State to reasonably co-operate with, and give reasonable assistance to, the commissioner in relation to an investigation under this section. I touched on that earlier in relation to the concerns of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Secretary of State must also consider any findings or recommendations made by the commissioner in connection with an investigation under this section.
Subsection (8) sets out the definitions for this section, including that the definition of a “relevant family member” is to be set out in regulations. As I mentioned in response to questions from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would expect that to be set out during the course of the passage of the Bill. It would then go through the usual scrutiny process should Members wish to interrogate the provision further.
Proposed new section 340IB, “Power of Entry to Service Premises” will, when inserted into the Act, confer powers on the commissioner enabling them to enter certain Ministry of Defence sites in the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) specifies that the power of entry includes certain actions, including the ability to observe activities at those sites and to inspect and take copies of documentation. I direct the attention of the Committee to the important power the commissioner has of requesting information from the Secretary of State, so their ability to interrogate, scrutinise and understand general service welfare matters is not restricted only to what they can observe on a visit; they also have the information they can request from the MOD. It is worth restating at this point that the commissioner’s investigations must relate to a general service welfare matter. They cannot use the power of entry to access sites or information purely on a whim, or for their own interest.
Subsection (2) provides that copies of electronic documentation provided to the commissioner must be legible and in a form that can be taken away. Subsections (3) and (4) require that, prior to relying on their powers of entry, the commissioner should provide such notice to the Secretary of State as they consider appropriate. Where they consider that to provide such notice would defeat the object of their powers of entry, they may provide no notice at all, but only where their visit relates to services premises within the UK. For service premises outside the UK, the commissioner must give notice of the proposal to visit within such a period as the commissioner considers appropriate.
Subsection (5) permits the commissioner to be accompanied on visits by a person or bring anything of their choosing if required for the purposes of their investigation and obliges the commissioner to provide evidence of their identity should that be requested. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to prevent or restrict the commissioner’s powers of entry where they consider it necessary in the interests of national security or for the safety of any person. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a concern on Second Reading in relation to frontline operations. In that situation, just to reassure him, the Secretary of State would have the ability to prevent a visit to a frontline position. That would probably relate to the safety of any person, notwithstanding national security implications. To reassure him, that is something that would be taken into account when any overseas visits were made.
Subsection (7) sets out the instances when the commissioner may not exercise their powers. That includes where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to assume an item is subject to legal privilege. In addition, subsection (7) sets out that the commissioner cannot require an individual to do anything they could not be compelled to do by a civil court. Subsection (8) provides relevant definitions.
Proposed new section 340LA, on reports and recommendations into general service welfare investigations, will, when inserted into the Armed Forces Act, enable the commissioner to prepare reports setting out their findings and recommendations resulting from one of their general service welfare investigations. Subsection (2)(b) sets out that where a report is prepared, the commissioner must give it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable. Subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State must, on receiving the report, lay it before Parliament promptly, and in any event within 30 sitting days. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to exclude from any report any material where they consider that its publication would be against the interests of national security might jeopardise someone’s safety. Taken together, the powers and reports will provide Parliament with a much greater level of scrutiny of the issues facing our service personnel and their families.
Mr Francois
During the public evidence session, several of our witnesses—including those from the three service families federations—raised the question of special educational needs provision for the children of armed forces personnel. That provoked a number of questions to witnesses from members of the Committee, including some from me. I gave the Minister and the then Chair notice that I would seek to provoke at least a brief debate on education, and on special educational needs in particular. Having taken advice, I seek to do so under clause 4 stand part.
I will try to summarise the issue succinctly. Because of the nature of service life, service families often have to move locations, for example from one Army garrison to another or from one RAF airbase to a different one. Not only are their partners encouraged to “follow the flag”, as the old saying has it, but their children are expected to do so as well. As the witnesses highlighted, including the two generals, as I like to call them—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory—that often presents a number of challenges, not least for spousal employment. Partners of armed forces personnel sometimes find it challenging to pursue careers of their own if they are asked to move frequently. It can present other issues as well, such as access to medical and dental services, with people having to register and re-register as they move from one military patch to another. Here I hope I am keeping my word to the hon. Member for Broxtowe and raising a number of issues aside from pensions. [Interruption.] She smiles benevolently at me in return, and I thank her.
However, there is a particular issue regarding children’s education. It is not my purpose this afternoon to provoke a major debate on VAT on school fees and the continuity of education allowance, although I note in passing that some witnesses raised that on Tuesday. Having seen the uplift in CEA rates, which I think was published on Tuesday, I fear that it will not be enough to compensate for the 20% increase in school fees. That may have a detrimental effect on armed forces retention, not just for officers but for senior NCOs in particular. I cite one brief example. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” study about five years ago, I spoke to one RAF senior warrant officer who said to me: “If you screw around with CEA, Sir, I am off, and so is my husband, who is in the service too. It is really the one thing that keeps us both in—we are doing it for the education of our children.” I wanted to highlight to the Minister and the Committee the potential effect on retention of not fully compensating armed forces personnel for the increase.
Having done that, I move on to SEN. As many Committee members know from their constituency casework, in the civilian world, if a child is diagnosed with special educational needs, it can take up to two years to achieve an education, health and care plan—what was in old money a statement of special educational needs—from the relevant local education authority. For the avoidance of doubt, that can be the case under Conservative, Labour and other administrations. The issue is not particularly confined to local councils of one party colour or another; the process is just very complex and time-consuming.
Amanda Martin
As a teacher who worked in Portsmouth North, where we have a large number of naval families, I absolutely agree with you that SEND is in crisis. For families who need to move, the concerns are amplified. I sit on the Education Committee, and SEND is one of the top priorities that we are looking at with this Government.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will know, not least from her service on that important Committee, of what is called the statutory override. In a nutshell, local authorities must produce a balanced budget each year, but, because of the very great pressure on local authorities that are also LEAs, they have been allowed to overspend on SEN for several years because it is such a big pressure. Bluntly, it would have bankrupted some of them otherwise. She may be able to update us, but I understand that the default position is that the statutory override is due to expire in March 2026. In other words, when local authorities are planning their new budgets for the ’26-’27 financial year, those budgets will have to balance.
I served on the Public Accounts Committee for a couple of years in the previous Parliament. About a month ago, the National Audit Office produced a report, which I am sure the Education Committee will look at, basically saying that the current system is unsustainable. This will be a challenge for the new Government. I am not trying to make a partisan point here, but it was a challenge for the previous Government and it will be a challenge for the new Labour Government, too. I mention that just to drive home the scale of the SEN challenge. There is no evidence that armed forces personnel are proportionately more or less likely to have a special needs child than members of civilian communities, so statistically it is a big problem for them, too.
Mr Francois
I am trying to wind up, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point. This is an important topic.
Terry Jermy
In a surgery just two weeks ago, I had a serving member of the armed forces who is no longer deployable because he has to homeschool his child as a result of failure in relation to SEND. Does the shadow Minister agree that one of the big challenges is that this is widespread across the whole country? It is not just a problem for us in Norfolk. If my constituent were to be deployed elsewhere, there would be exactly the same challenges, because the issue is widespread across the whole country.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not have the NAO report in front of me, and that is my fault—forgive me—but from memory, it made the point that this was a nationwide problem. The scale of the problem was such that it did not just affect region or another; it touched pretty much everywhere. I think the NAO focused mainly on England and Wales, but certainly in those two nations this was a big problem, and I have nothing to lead me to believe that it is not a problem in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
On childcare, I should add that one result of “Stick or Twist?” was that the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, managed to use the report as ammunition to persuade the Treasury to invest quite a lot of money in childcare facilities for armed forces personnel. The Minister will know how difficult that can be. It included improving childcare facilities at a number of military installations around the country and, in some cases, extending the hours to something more akin to wraparound childcare. For the record, if only for that, the report was worth writing.
I think we have given this issue a good go, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to raise another, so I will leave it there. I am sure the Minister understands the spirit of this clause stand part debate, and I very much hope that he can give us some good news in this area. I am sure that the whole Committee, as well as the armed forces and their families, would welcome that.
Lincoln Jopp
Members of the Committee will be aware that line 35 on page 2 defines a general welfare matter using its own terms; it says that a general welfare matter is a matter to do with welfare. Thinking back to when we all did English GCSE—or O-level, in the case of some of us—we know that using terms to define themselves is a bit self-defeating, because they do not really define anything. I assume that is deliberate, and maybe the Minister will tell us so. The provision is incredibly broadly drawn and gives the commissioner very free reign as to what they consider a welfare matter to be, with one or two exclusions that the Minister mentioned earlier.
I think that is important, because I keep being told, and I have read in the explanatory notes, that this is all inspired by the German model. When I ask what is so great about the German model, I read that it is because German members of the armed forces are really happy with it. On Tuesday, General Gregory said that to do their job effectively, the armed forces commissioner needs a clear and deep view of defence outputs. People being happy with a part of the bureaucracy is not a defence output. The only one that trumps everything else is the ability to deliver legal, lethal force. In summary, the armed forces need to be able to kill lots of people.
Luke Akehurst
Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—it is almost as if he read my speech. I was going to stay on my German theme and say that one person who interpreted that general definition of welfare was another German: General Erwin Rommel. He said that the best form of welfare is better training, because more training means fewer widows.
Although the Bill and the Minister attempt to draw the line between operations abroad and welfare at home, those things rub up against each other. For example, the Ministry of Defence has targets for nights out of bed. How much time can personnel be expected to spend away without their service becoming too detrimental to their family life? Equally, it has these things that sound wonderful—I thought it was to do with hairspray—called harmony guidelines. In fact, they are to do with how long the armed forces can send people away for without a specified dwell time in between for them to recuperate.
From a welfare point of view, it is perfectly possible that the Armed Forces Commissioner could focus solely on whether a commanding officer, a unit, a brigade, a ship’s captain or whatever was meeting the nights out of bed guidelines or the harmony guidelines. But the captain of that ship or the commanding officer of that unit might well think, as Rommel did, that more training was better in the long run for the welfare of their personnel. I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.
My other concern is much more strategic: by having an Armed Forces Commissioner with these extended powers and the ability to report to Parliament, we put a spotlight on one aspect of militarism, potentially to the detriment of other aspects of it, such as the defence output of killing lots of people. That is important because the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the defence board, will be making strategic balance-of-investment decisions between things such as buying a lot more jets and getting damp-proof courses for quarters.
Look at the figures in the House of Commons Defence Committee report into service accommodation, which was published yesterday. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were minded to rectify the parlous state of some parts of the defence estate, that alone would use up every single penny of the, I think, £2.6 billion extra that the Chancellor has found to increase the defence budget.
I alert the Minister to the fact that over time, the instigation of this parliamentary-level scrutiny of one aspect of the make-up of defence may well strategically shift us away from the defence output of lethality. It is a reductio argument, but we could have a fully manned armed forces with everyone giving 100% scores on the continuous attitude survey, great pensions and fantastic pay, but they cannot win a war. Clearly, that is not where we want to get to. We have to put in place measures and judgments that mean that the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the instigation and extension of their powers, does not undermine the military chain of command or the capacity to fight.
Luke Pollard
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important part of the Bill. If I may, I will respond quickly to a number of the points that have been raised. The shadow Minister mentioned the continuity of education allowance. It is important, and that is why the Secretary of State has uplifted it to include the VAT, where it has been charged additionally by a school—not all schools will charge the additional VAT, as that is a decision for them—and it will continue to be paid at 90% of the fees. We have addressed the concern raised with us by service personnel to continue that 90% level for CEA.
Mr Francois
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said; it is very gracious of him. I do not think it is to betray a confidence to say that he and I have threatened to sit down and have a cup of coffee several times to talk about the accommodation issue, in particular. I thought I would take this opportunity to remind him of that—perhaps we can do that early in the new year.
Luke Pollard
I will check with my husband whether I am allowed a cheeky coffee date with the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Pollard
I will resist the temptation to comment. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman and I share a common view that the defence accommodation for our armed forces is not good enough. I raised the matter consistently in opposition, and he has done so as well. We need to get on top of it. My ministerial colleagues—the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry and the Minister for Veterans and People—are leading the work. Although a coffee would, of course, be lovely, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would be better having it with my ministerial colleagues, so that they can look at the detail of what he is saying.
It is important that we deal with those retention and recruitment issues, but I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who spoke about operations abroad and welfare at home being separate. The whole point of a general service welfare matter and the broad powers we are giving the commissioner is that the commissioner is able to investigate such matters in all circumstances. The only distinction is whether an unannounced visit can be delivered. I think all members of the Committee will understand that there is a difference between turning up to a UK facility and turning up to one abroad, especially with a number of defence facilities abroad being in locations where there are greater concerns around security. I think we all understand the distinction that we make there, and that is why welfare is a priority.
If I may correct the hon. Member for Spelthorne on one point, the Chancellor gave Defence an extra £2.9 billion in the recent Budget, not the £2.6 billion he mentioned. It is good to have a Government increase defence spending in their first Budget. If we roll back to 2010, the new Conservative Government cut defence spending in their first Budget, so we are going in the right direction.
On the substantive issue that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised about SEND, I say to him that that is precisely the type of issue that I would expect a commissioner, in due course, to look at as part of their thematic reviews, because we know it affects the welfare of our people and their families. The sequence in which issues are dealt with will be a matter for the commissioner, but I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman raising that as an issue, because it is important, just as housing, childcare and other issues raised by hon. Friends are important for our service personnel. Indeed, as in the case of a constituent raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, we know that welfare matters directly affect our deployability. If our people are not able to fulfil all their duties in service life because of the impact of their home life, that reduces our warfighting capabilities. That is why we are putting so much effort into general service welfare matters as a new Government.
I commend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for raising this issue. He is absolutely right that the state of SEND support across the country is not good enough. The Department for Education and the Education Secretary herself have made it very clear that it is a priority for the Government. We have made it a priority precisely because in every single community across the country, including the one I represent in Plymouth, people are unable to access SEND support for their children or to get an education, health and care plan in a timely manner. That is especially difficult for our armed forces personnel, where there is a movement between areas.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will know that there has been a development in relation to education, health and care plans where a young person leaves England. An agreement has been made between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education that clarifies the powers and flexibilities to, importantly, maintain EHCPs in scenarios where children are temporarily absent from England—this is a devolved matter across the UK—but that does not get to the whole heart of what he is saying. That is why DFE is taking such important steps. It is also why the Ministry of Defence now has an armed forces family fund, which has been provided with £1.2 million to support service children with additional needs.
Let me say very clearly that all of us across Government need to do more to support families with SEND children and young people. That is why we have made the issue a priority, and I expect it to be one the commissioner will want to look at. If they do, I am certain the Ministry of Defence will be able to fully furnish them with information and provision, because we want them to shine a spotlight on issues where things are not right, so that we can improve them for our servicepeople.
Mr Francois
The Minister mentioned the devolved Administrations point, and that is encouraging. I gave an example of someone who moved from Tidworth garrison to Catterick garrison. Is it now the case that they could port their EHCP from Wiltshire to Yorkshire, as if they had got it from Yorkshire in the first place? Have we got to that stage yet or not?
Luke Pollard
I think the right hon. Gentleman and I have slightly different recollections of Tuesday’s discussion on this. I would like us to get to a point where armed forces families that move around the country are better able to be supported. The DFE is leading on a piece of work on education, health and care plans, and we know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is involved in that.
We need to make sure that the development of digital EHCPs and the requirement for common formats between English local authorities will assist in that direction of travel. That will reduce the time taken to convert plans between different local authority formats for mobile families, including those in defence. Additionally, live access plans will offer armed forces families greater empowerment and agency in the planning and management of their EHCPs.
The Ministry of Defence’s local authority partnership outlines a set of voluntary principles adopted by 19 local authorities, predominantly in strong defence areas. The principles enhance the existing provision for armed forces children in the SEND code of practice. This is an issue that we as a new Government are looking at on a cross-departmental basis. I expect us to make further announcements in due course about the details and changes we want to put in place. We recognise that EHCP provision and SEND provision across the country are not what they should be. We have inherited a really poor and concerning picture from the previous Administration, and we are seeking to get to the bottom of it and improve it.
Mr Francois
I take no umbrage at all at what the Minister said about Tuesday—Her late Majesty herself famously said that recollections may vary. I think the point has been made. Could he give the Committee one last commitment before we end the clause stand part debate? Could he assure us that when he gets back to the Department, he or one of his fellow Ministers will chase this up in a timely manner with his colleagues at the DFE, in the hope that we can secure the kind of progress he was intimating at, including on the IT front? It would be a shame if this very pressing issue was held up because of a software glitch between computer A and computer B in two different local authorities. Could he give us his word of honour, which we would take, that he will go back to the Department and press on this to try to get some good news in the new year?
Luke Pollard
Certainly, strides are being made right across Government to improve SEND provision. It is absolutely true that SEND provision is a shame on our nation. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government that is unacceptable for our young people and children. It is unacceptable for civilians and people in service life, and it is something that we seek to change.
I am happy to continue the conversations that the MOD is having with the DFE, in particular, to look at how we can support these provisions. However, in relation to the Bill, I would expect this to be an area that the commissioner could look at. When they are inviting representations—when their office is stood up—I suspect that service families and service personnel will be wanting and able to share their experiences of a system that is not working the way it should be. We are trying to put change in place, and I know that that position is shared on a cross-party basis. We have to do a lot better than the situation we have inherited, in order to support people, and young people with SEND.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
Clauses 6 to 8 stand part.
Luke Pollard
I turn first to clause 5 and schedule 2. Clause 5 sets out that the consequential amendments are contained in schedule 2. The schedule amends existing legislation to ensure that the abolition of the role of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the creation of the role of Armed Forces Commissioner are reflected across a range of provisions on the statute book. Members will be able to see those edits in the Bill, and most of them simply replace references to the Service Complaints Ombudsman with references to the Armed Forces Commissioner, with no practical policy change.
The changes to part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which covers service complaints, also serve to ensure that there is a clear distinction between references to existing investigations relating to service complaints and references to the new general service welfare investigations, which we spoke about earlier.
I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 17 of schedule 2, which amends the powers currently afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman to require information, documents and evidence necessary to conduct their service complaints investigations. The change ensures that the powers to request information also apply to the commissioner’s new powers of investigation into general service welfare matters. It is an important change, allowing the commissioner fully to investigate those issues. Similarly, the change in paragraph 18 ensures that, in respect of their new functions, the commissioner has the same enforcement mechanisms as are currently afforded to the ombudsman.
Clause 6 sets out the extent of the Bill. It does that through subsections (1) and (2), extending the Bill to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and to Scotland, except for the concept of the commissioner being a corporation sole, because Scots law does not have the concept of a corporation sole. Subsections (4) and (5) include a permissive extent provision, which enables the Bill’s provisions to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the British overseas territories—except Gibraltar—and the Isle of Man. The Bill does not contain a permissive extent provision for Gibraltar, as Gibraltar legislates for itself on the Armed Forces Act via the Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018, so it is not appropriate to include it in the Bill.
I have spoken to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been very welcoming of the Bill and has confirmed that he is content to continue to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on armed forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters. I thank the Chief Minister and his Government for that co-operation.
It is important that clause 6 be agreed to, as it sets out the legal jurisdictions in which the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will have legal effect. Clause 7 outlines the provisions that will come into force once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Except for the extent, commencement and short title clauses, the main provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make in regulations transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any of the Bill’s provisions.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Would it be possible for the Minister to provide clarification on how sensitive information will be handled? I imagine that, with these extra powers, the new commissioner will be able to take both physical and digital sensitive information. Does that indicate that there will be a need for a new secure physical facility to allow those documents to be stored and a new digital network to allow those digital files to be handled?
Luke Pollard
I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly using his previous experience in the military to carefully scrutinise how this provision will work in practice. I am very happy to write to him about that. It would be set out in the implementation work that the Ministry of Defence is doing at the moment. However, we have a foundation in the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, which already handles much of that sensitive information, especially in cases relating to personnel and their issues, and I imagine that that work will carry on. The Armed Forces Commissioner is also subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and a whole array of other legislation that seeks to ensure the proper security of information. I am happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman on the detail of all that.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting; I was in the Etherton review debate in the main Chamber, contributing on important LGBTQ+ issues. I see that my amendments fell in my absence, and I hope that nothing detrimental was said about my absence, considering the importance of the Etherton review for LGBT veterans.
Moving on to recruits, it is essential that the commissioner can also investigate issues facing recruits, who sometimes have to stay on bases overnight. Upon reading the Bill, I saw that there is an absence of consideration of recruits, which is why I tabled the new clause—to make sure that they are also considered in the Bill.
Mr Francois
I only have two points to make. First, if it reassures the hon. Lady, I did read into the record that she had a conflicting appointment downstairs in the main Chamber and that that was why she was not here. I am not so sure about her colleague, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), but I did place it on the record that she had to be downstairs.
As I understand it, recruits would be subject to service law once they have taken the oath and joined the armed forces. If one takes that as one’s handrail, they should already be covered by the Bill. None the less, I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, so perhaps the Minister could kindly clarify whether my understanding is correct.
Lincoln Jopp
It occurs to me that, prior to taking the oath, there is a body of people who are prospective recruits. They have a material impact on morale, because if they take months and months to get through the pipeline to become recruits, the wastage rate increases and fewer people turn up in training, which means that the armed forces are undermanned. I would have thought that that was something the Armed Forces Commissioner might want to do a thematic investigation into. It is tricky, because these people are not subject to military service, but maybe the Secretary of State could nevertheless consider the issue in defining the role with the new commissioner.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her new clause and her concerns about potential recruits. First, it is absolutely vital that we fix the recruitment crisis that the armed forces have experienced for much of the last decade. As the shadow Minister confirmed, our armed forces lose more people than they gain, which is an unsustainable position. That is a dire inheritance, which fundamentally shines a light on the failure of the last Government to give our armed forces not only the people they need, but the systems and the support that people need to join and to stay in service.
I recognise that many of the people applying to join the armed forces wait for far too long, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It is for precisely that reason that the Secretary for State gave a commitment in his Labour conference speech on the “10-30 provision”: within 10 days from application we will give a provisional offer to join the armed forces, and 30 days from the point of application we will give a provisional start date. That is being rolled out at the moment. It will take some time to deliver across all three services, but that is an important step towards providing more clarity. When people understand how long the recruitment process will take, they are better able to make decisions about travel, work or their own life in that period.
Lincoln Jopp
If that strategy does not work or if it is seen to be failing, will the Minister make it clear whether that is something that the Armed Forces Commissioner could look at? As the Bill is currently drafted, they would not be allowed to do that.
Luke Pollard
I was coming to that point. At any one time, there are roughly 150,000 applicants in the military joining process, all of whom are still civilians and who would be brought under the scope of the commissioner by this amendment, were it to pass. That could vastly increase the workload of the commissioner and mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they need.
Mr Francois
On the point about recruitment, I hope the Minister, who is fair-minded, would be prepared to attest that in the previous Government, when I was on the Back Benches, there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me. I wish the previous Government had done something about their poor record and I invite the new Government to do something about that—the sooner the better.
Luke Pollard
I believe the right hon. Gentleman has not been on Capita’s Christmas card list for quite some time. Speaking as the Minister responsible for recruitment, we have set out some policies in relation to improving our recruitment process, in particular the time of flight issue that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. We will be making further announcements in the new year on how we seek to improve that, but there is work under way in all the single services and across the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say something now, but I ask him to hold his nerve; there will be further announcements in due course.
On the concern about recruits, potential civilian recruits are unlikely to have encountered general service welfare issues in the same way as those people who are in service, who will be the principal remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The experience of potential recruits is very important and we have set a new ambition for the armed forces to make a conditional offer in 10 days and provide a provisional start date in 30 days. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete an attestation that makes them a member of the armed forces, subject to service law and therefore within the scope of the commissioner from that first moment.
To reassure the Committee, the new Government’s work in improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talents, highlighting that Defence is a modern forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career.
There will be further announcements about how we seek to build on recruitment in the new year, but let me put firmly on the record that there are a lot of people who want to join the armed forces, especially young people looking to establish a good career in our military. We and all those with responsibility for supporting our armed forces need to improve the recruitment process to enable them to join, and that will improve the warfighting capability—the lethality—of our armed forces and thus the deterrent effect.
The issues that the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Spelthorne raised are very important. We do not believe recruits should be within the scope of the commissioner because they are outside the scope of service law, but I entirely recognise that there may be issues that recruits may wish to raise with the Armed Forces Commissioner about the recruitment process subsequent to their joining the armed forces. The commissioner would therefore need to make a decision on whether to take up those issues, based on whether they fall within the definition of a general service welfare matter. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will withdraw the new clause.
Helen Maguire
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of –
(a) how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner;
(b) how the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will each ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”—(Mr Francois.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Francois
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we come round the final bend, hopefully the Committee will recall something that cropped up quite a lot in Tuesday’s public evidence session. A number of witnesses mentioned veterans, and there were quite a few questions, so we thought it appropriate to table a new clause to facilitate a debate on this subject, and specifically on how the Armed Forces Commissioner might, if at all, be able to engage on issues of veterans’ welfare, including with the existing veterans commissioners.
There is concern within the veterans’ community about the incoming Government’s decision, first, to remove the Veterans Minister from Cabinet and, secondly, to roll the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD, whereas previously it was at least independent from that Department, if not wholly independent from the Government, when the OVA lived in the Cabinet Office.
I am not imagining that this is a matter of concern. I have a letter here that was written to the Minister for Veterans and People, dated 30 July 2024, co-signed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the then Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. The letter highlights very well the issue of genuine independence from the MOD. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter’s tone is in no way personally critical of the Veterans Minister, whose military service we fully acknowledge and salute this afternoon; the nub of the issue is the fact that the OVA has been moved. The letter says:
“Firstly, as a junior minister you have no seat in Cabinet. We understand that SofS will represent veterans at this level but his responsibilities are broad and he is not focusing daily on veterans’ affairs; nor will you, with your entire MoD people portfolio… Secondly, the subordination of the OVA under your control”—
that is, the MOD’s control—
“whilst tidying-up the government wiring diagram, also concerns us. The major factors that impact on veterans, such as health, housing, employment, education and social care are not MoD controlled. As such, locating the OVA in the Cabinet Office made sense, to best coordinate and cajole other departments into taking veterans’ needs into account.”
I have now kept my word to the hon. Member for North Durham, who challenged me to talk about this—I have done my best.
The letter from the three veterans commissioners goes on to say:
“Veterans have little faith in the MoD leading on veteran policy and delivery. This attitude has been entrenched through the perception of adversity and neglect that many veterans have experienced in their dealings with the MoD. It is a tough message, but one that we are duty bound to deliver.”
The previous Government cannot be blamed for this one, because we created the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and deliberately gave birth to it, as it were, in the Cabinet Office and not the MOD. Much of today’s debate has been about the independence, or otherwise, of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Well, here are three veterans commissioners collectively expressing their “concern” about the Government’s decision to take the OVA and roll it back into the MOD, where the risk is that the Department will end up marking its own homework. Veterans clearly preferred it when the OVA was at least semi-independent under the Cabinet Office, and when Johnny Mercer was an extremely proactive member of the Cabinet pushing very hard on a range of these issues.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
As an MP who represents a constituency with an active barracks and many veterans, I totally agree that this is a serious matter, but what does it have to do with the Bill, and is the wording of the new clause not in danger of affecting the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, and their right to set how they work independently, by putting what may be artificial timescales on decisions?
Mr Francois
I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What it has to do with the Bill is that this issue cropped up quite a lot in the public evidence session. I respectfully refer him to the Hansard report of Tuesday’s proceedings. A number of witnesses raised the veterans issue, and I believe a number of members of the Committee followed up with questions. We had tabled the new clause by Monday night because we knew that there was concern within the veterans’ community about the independence of the OVA and therefore the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which to be fair is a theme that we have discussed repeatedly today. That is the context in which the new clause was tabled on Monday evening, but it is worrying that one of the three veterans commissioners apparently felt compelled to resign because some in Government were seeking to crimp what they were trying to do on behalf of the veterans they were appointed to serve.
Now that the OVA is back within the MOD, and given that the decision was taken on the Government’s watch, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—we have a MOD Minister here, not a Cabinet Office Minister—that there will be no further attempts to impinge on the independence of any veterans commissioner by anyone in Government, any more than we would want them to impinge on the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner. I have three very specific questions to that effect; then I will allow the Minister to reply.
First, where is the veterans commissioner for England? We were told, when I raised this issue on Second Reading, that the Department was working on it. At one point, there was going to be a UK-wide veterans commissioner, which then seemingly morphed into a veterans commissioner for England. We have one for Scotland and one for Wales—we had one for Northern Ireland too, but he resigned—so where are we on the veterans commissioner for England? Why should English veterans be at any disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the other three nations of the awesome foursome? Those English veterans served the Crown too. Where is their commissioner?
Secondly, what is the timetable for replacing the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner? Presumably the Government do not want that post to remain vacant for long, particularly with all the utter chaos over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Thirdly, what formal assurances can the Minister give on the record that this will not happen again? Those are my three questions.
Amanda Martin
Sorry. The right hon. Gentleman states that the Veterans Minister is vital and the fact that they do not sit in Cabinet now is a concern. Can he tell me which Tory MP sits in the shadow Cabinet to represent veterans?
Mr Francois
The clue is in the name: the shadow Cabinet is there to shadow the actual Cabinet. If there is not a Veterans Minister in the actual Cabinet, it is not necessarily axiomatic that there would be one in the shadow Cabinet.
To be clear, the decision to take the Veterans Minister out of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and roll them in under the Ministry of Defence as—no disrespect—a junior Minister, was a decision taken by the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Excuse me—one at a time! I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley to my left—dare I put it that way—saying that the Prime Minister promised he would not do that. It was a decision taken by the Labour Government. I have read out the comments from the commissioners, who are there to represent the interests of the veterans’ community; I am not imagining it. The community are clearly very concerned, so perhaps we could hear the Minister’s reply.
Luke Pollard
I thank the shadow Minister for his views on engagement with veterans commissioners. To reiterate, the purpose of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to shine a spotlight on and be an independent advocate for serving personnel and their families.
Notwithstanding the really important contribution that veterans make to our communities—and our armed forces community—we are seeking to address the particular deficit of scrutiny on the issues affecting armed forces personnel because they are not allowed to take up the same channels to raise a concern as civilians are. There are preventions on them speaking to Members of Parliament and the media in the way that a civilian can. That is why we are addressing those particular concerns with an Armed Forces Commissioner, who will look at those personnel and their issues alone.
In setting out clearly where we are, however, I turn to some of the issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. First, I put on the record the importance of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the main Chamber just now—she was addressing the Etherton report. All the members of the Committee who were not in the Chamber—because we were here—will have missed the announcement made by the Secretary of State: we have adopted 42 of the 49 recommendations in the Etherton report and implemented them; we will have implemented all 49 by the end of the next year; and, for the shame brought on our society by how LGBT veterans were treated, we are increasing the amount payable to them recommended in the report by 50%, from a fund of £50 million to one of £75 million.
That means a standard payment of £50,000 for those LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexuality or gender identity, with a further £20,000 for an LGBT impact payment, which depends on their experience of the ban. From the harrowing testimony of many LGBT veterans, we know how they were treated because of their sexuality or gender identity—disgusting medical interventions and imprisonment. Furthermore, we will provide additional support for restoration of rank, if lowering of rank was involved at the point of dismissal, and for correcting their service record. Today’s announcement was a substantial one, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Minister for Veterans and People for championing it so clearly from day one in office.
In responding to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I do not wish to belittle or disregard any of the veterans’ concerns he has mentioned or those in the wider community. The focus on armed forces personnel is really important. As such, his questions sit outside the broad brush of where we are for this Bill, but I entirely understand his passion. I am happy to take those questions back to the Department and ask the Minister for Veterans and People to write to him with further details, which is probably the appropriate way of getting the ideas that he requires.
I gently point out that there is no shadow veterans Minister in the shadow Cabinet, a choice that could have been taken by the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. I would like to—I think—welcome him as the shadow veterans Minister, because he shadows nearly every other Commons Minister, which is quite a lot of work for him. When we were in opposition, having a dedicated shadow veterans Minister—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, who is now sitting behind me as the Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary—was important, because it gives due regard to the experience of the veterans. I hope that his party will be able to follow Labour when we were in opposition, and appoint a dedicated shadow veterans Minister, in whatever form that may be, in due course.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that this matter is important. The Defence Secretary sits around the Cabinet table representing veterans, and he does so very well. We have seen from the Etherton announcement today that that voice around the Cabinet table delivers real benefits for veterans in increasing the support available to them, but we need to ensure that this Bill is tightly drawn around the general service welfare needs of our armed forces and the people who serve in them.
Having said that, let me show a little bit of parliamentary leg to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, in terms of where the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation reforms could come into play. It is another policy of this Government to create a new area where, instead of people having the binary status of being in the armed forces or not—and we recognise that many veterans face a real cliff edge in terms of their lived experience and career trajectories when they leave service—they can rejoin the armed forces, removing some of the current barriers that prevent them from being able to do so.
That is an important part of being able to address the skills need, but we also recognise that in the modern world people may have careers, in uniform and out of uniform, that could be of benefit to defence. There could be an area of service where people serve, leave, serve outside in a civilian role, rejoin and do so likewise. In such circumstances, the general service welfare matters of the Armed Forces Commissioner would pertain to their experience subject to service law, but the Armed Forces Commissioner may wish to look at the rejoining aspect in due course, as part of a general service welfare matter for them as re-joiners.
Lincoln Jopp
There is something of a twilight zone. We heard from Colonel Darren Doherty on Tuesday that he had done his 38 years’ service and was now entering a period of regular reserved service, which, as the Minister knows, is a residual requirement to answer the call to arms. I have checked with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and I believe her period has finished. I think mine is finished, but I am always waiting for that knock at the door. I am pretty sure my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is still well within his window.
When examining the secondary legislation, it might be worth examining this issue. If that cohort of people felt that they wanted to report an issue, would they report it to the Armed Forces Commissioner because they were still liable to call-up, or would they report it to the veterans commissioner whenever that role is introduced? I believe that those on the regular reserve list are not subject to military law, but I think they are subject to criminal law in terms of their requirement. I am genuinely not clear on the matter, and if I am not clear, then each commissioner would not necessarily be clear as to which one is responsible.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to use the call-up powers that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces to pick and choose, which is certainly not how I would reflect those powers in a day-to-day operation. However, he raises a really important point, which speaks to the broader challenge of where we are with reserve forces.
At the moment, there are a number of different categories of reserve forces to which a large chunk of legislation pertains, some of which may be relevant and some of which may need updating in order to deliver it. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a piece of work at the moment to look at how we can do so. That is part of the work to renew the contract between the nation and those who have served, but also to make sure that we have available to us as a nation not only a reserve force made up of those people who are subject to service law, but a strategic reserve made up of those people who have left but who—as the hon. Member for Spelthorne says—still await a knock at the door if required. That piece of work is ongoing.
The legislation in relation to the Armed Forces Commissioner clearly deals with people affected by service law, not necessarily by a residual commitment. However, it would be up to the Armed Forces Commissioner, depending on the issue of the thematic investigation, whether he or she wished to invite the opinions of people who may sit outside of uniformed service, as well as of families. That would be a matter for the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the hon. Gentleman will have spotted that there is a clause in the Bill allowing the commissioner to invite views from whoever they see fit in the exercise of their duties. That may be something that the House of Commons Defence Committee wishes to interrogate further, or something that we should pick up once the commissioner’s office has been stood up.
Mr Francois
To begin on a light-hearted note, I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North for pointing out that I do not sit in the shadow Cabinet. If she wants to drop my leader a note recommending that, I promise not to stand in her way. Bless you—have a good weekend!
On a more serious note, there is concern, which I hope I have managed to evidence, about the decision to move the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD. I think that point has been made, but now that it is the MOD’s responsibility departmentally it would be very helpful if, when the Minister writes to me—obviously, he will write to every member of the Committee; it is copy one, copy all for anything that relates to a Committee proceeding, as you will recall, Mr Betts—he gives some detail in reply to the questions I have asked. Where is this English and/or UK veterans commissioner? We raised that question on Second Reading, so when the Minister replies, perhaps we could be updated and given a date for when that is actually going to happen. If it is not going to happen, perhaps we could be told why. Perhaps we could also have some response to what has clearly happened in Northern Ireland, which is obviously undesirable.
Perhaps in his note, the Minister could also explain the Government’s conception of how the Armed Forces Commissioner will relate to these three, possibly four—hopefully four—veterans commissioners. When somebody makes the transition from being a serviceperson to being a veteran, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for quite a number of years. When they hand back their MOD 90 ID card—which as the Minister knows, servicepeople are supposed to do, but some forget—and get their veteran’s ID card in return, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for 22 years, say. That is a massive transition, so if the Armed Forces Commissioner is going to do their job effectively, remembering what armed forces personnel go on to do and the changed status they have is something that should legitimately be at the forefront of their mind. There should be some mechanism whereby they can interact with the veterans commissioners around the United Kingdom, so I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.
Luke Pollard
At the risk of repeating myself, it would be for the Armed Forces Commissioner to determine interactions, but I would expect the commissioner to establish procedures for consulting and engaging with a whole range of armed forces communities’ representatives, including those who represent veterans’ communities. As we know, many veterans’ organisations have interests similar to those of the serving population, so I suspect that the commissioner themselves would establish those procedures. None the less, I am happy to include that in the note.
Mr Francois
I take the point. We have made the case, and I hope the Minister will reply promptly—let us say January, please, not March or June. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the other members of the Committee in January, when we come back from our Christmas break, specifically about what is going to happen to those veterans commissioners, because they are now under the purview of his Department.
With that said, Mr Betts, we do not want you to miss your train. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Francois
If I may, Mr Betts, that was clearly the voice of experience.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.