Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 14 January 2025, on the Work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, HC 626, and correspondence between the Defence Committee and the Secretary of State for Defence, on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, reported to the House on 14 November 2024 and 14 January 2025.]

New Clause 1

Applicability to prospective recruits

“In this Act, any reference to ‘service personnel’ or ‘persons subject to service law’ includes people going through the recruitment process to join any branch of the armed forces.”—(Helen Maguire.)

This new clause would allow those currently going through the recruitment process to join the armed forces to use the Armed Forces Commissioner for its intended purposes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.30 pm

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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) whether or how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Chairman of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery;

(b) whether or how the Commissioner and Secretary of State will ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners and related bodies.

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 its functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from—

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the Armed Forces, including the chain of command; and

(c) any other government bodies;

and shall be free from any influence of interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government, the Armed Forces and any interference in the carrying out of their duties.

Amendment 6, 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 time frame 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.

Amendment 9, 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 death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 31, after “means” insert

“kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel as well as other”.

This amendment would include kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel in the definition of ”relevant family members”.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) the report must include the Commissioner’s view on whether the relevant general service welfare issue has had, or may have, an effect on the retention of armed forces personnel; and”.

This amendment would require a report by the Commissioner on a general service welfare matter to include the Commissioner’s view on whether the issue affects the retention of armed forces personnel.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) After section 340O (annual report on system for dealing with service complaints) insert—

‘340OA Annual report on the work of the Commissioner

(1) The Commissioner must, for each calendar year, prepare a report covering—

(a) the actions taken by the Commissioner to promote and improve the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(b) the initiatives undertaken by the Commissioner to enhance public awareness of welfare issues faced by persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(c) the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required.

(2) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament promptly and, in any event, before the end of 30 sitting days beginning with the day on which the report is received.

“Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.

(3) The Secretary of State may exclude from any report laid under this section any material the publication of which the Secretary of State considers—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

(4) With three months of the receipt of any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report which includes an overview of any measures taken or planned to be taken to address any resource issues identified by the Commissioner.’”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to publish an annual report on the work it had done to improve the welfare of service personnel and public awareness of welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

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.

Amendment 3, 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 its 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 its functions.

[Helen Maguire]

This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House.

The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role.

The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation.

Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach.

The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community.

New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line.

Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind.

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support.

Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community.

Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill.

It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken.

Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny.

That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked.

The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down.

The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the Chair of the Defence Committee agree that it is a question not merely of scrutiny but of approval? If the Committee, which he so ably chairs, decides that the persons brought before them are not fit for that role, is it not up to the Secretary of State to find somebody else who can obtain the approval of Committee?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond?

My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that, under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point.

The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments.

I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate?

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I stand to speak to amendment 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). As the Member of Parliament for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, I am proud to represent a constituency with a deep and enduring military history. It is home to Brecon barracks, the headquarters of the British Army in Wales, and 160th (Welsh) Brigade, alongside the Sennybridge training area, where thousands of British service members train in the Brecon Beacons.

14:47

My constituency is also home to a vibrant Nepalese community made up of former Gurkha soldiers and their families—an integral part of our community’s fabric. Gurkhas, renowned across the world for their bravery, professionalism and humility, have called the Brecon area home for over 50 years. They settled here during their distinguished service in the British Army and have since become an invaluable pillar of our local society. In fact, Brecon is now proudly twinned with Dhampus in Nepal, symbolising the bond between our two nations.

However, it is the past treatment of Gurkhas in the UK that compels me to support this amendment. Despite their service to the United Kingdom, the Gurkhas have faced significant discrimination for many decades. Many will remember the Gurkha justice campaign, which gained momentum thanks to the tireless efforts of Dame Joanna Lumley and the support of the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg. Through that campaign, a crucial parliamentary vote was won to grant all Gurkha veterans the right to reside in the UK, despite opposition from the Labour Government of the time.

However, it was not only residency rights on which the Gurkhas faced discrimination. They faced inadequate support after leaving active service, receiving less pay than their British counterparts for the same jobs, and many were deprived of fair pensions. Even today, veterans who served before 1997 continue to struggle for equal recognition and treatment. It is my firm belief that amendment 2—especially the call for the Armed Forces Commissioner to produce annual reports on the challenges faced by specific groups and to establish mechanisms for community engagement—will help ensure that no group ever again has to suffer injustice like the Gurkhas did. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this vital amendment.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be.

There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide.

As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks.

I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern that the staff of the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner? Does he agree that the commissioner having the freedom, independence and ability to challenge the Government with force and vigour, and without having to continually look over their shoulder at what may be perceived as oversight from the NIO, would actually strengthen that role?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

[Jim Allister]

It does. When a former Member of this House with Army experience, Mr Danny Kinahan, was appointed veterans commissioner, great expectations were placed on his shoulders. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, among the reasons proffered for leaving his role, Mr Kinahan stated that he felt his freedom of action was impinged on by the Northern Ireland Office. Be that right or be that wrong, the perception that such an office holder would have those restraints placed on them does untold damage to that office.

As I have in the past, I pay tribute to Mr Kinahan for his service in that role. I also wish well his recently appointed successor, Mr David Johnstone, whom I had the privilege of meeting last week. I trust that as he takes forward the work of representing veterans, he will find himself unrestrained. However, this Government could put all that beyond doubt by putting the veterans commissioner on the same statutory footing as the Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to Danny Kinahan; as a Minister who had some dealings with him, I would certainly say he did a very good job indeed. I wish his successor all the very best. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the previous Government actually went one step further by appointing a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of Cabinet rank—a very experienced individual—which this Government have failed to replicate?

[Jim Allister]

That is true. However, they failed to take the step I am now advocating of putting the veterans commissioner on a statutory footing. This Government can go one better and do the right thing for veterans, and I trust that they will. I do support new clause 2; I think it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to offer our retired servicemen the facilities we are offering our serving servicemen.

[Robin Swann]

The Ulster Unionist party would support new clause 2. I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor as Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim, Mr Kinahan, for the work that he did in this place and continued to do for veterans. I also wish David Johnstone well.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a point about the position of Veterans Minister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for the Veterans Minister to be responsible for appointing the veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland, rather than the NIO, and that there may be a segregation of perception with regard to some of the concerns that our veterans community would have?

[Jim Allister]

That is a fair point. In truth, our veterans community, as they see some of their brethren facing historic investigation, align the genesis and support for that investigation with the NIO. Therefore, it certainly would be better, both in presentation and in reality, if there was that distance between the veterans commissioner and the NIO.

15:00

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is to the discredit of the Opposition that they do not even have a shadow Veterans Minister who could bring up the issues he is raising?

[Jim Allister]

If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House!

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

[Jim Allister]

I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I would like to put forward my strongest support for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This legislation marks a significant step forward in ensuring that our armed forces personnel receive the care and support they deserve.

As the Member of Parliament for Stafford, I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by many of our service personnel and veterans. In my constituency, about 5.5% of residents are veterans, in addition to just under 1,000 serving personnel. For years, we have needed a national focus on the needs of serving personnel. By establishing an independent voice to investigate welfare matters, we can ensure that serving personnel have a dedicated champion who is able to bring their concerns to the forefront.

I am very pleased that the Bill will address long-standing issues in the current complaints process by transferring powers from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the new commissioner. That will provide serving personnel and their families with a much-needed avenue to address their grievances. That will make a huge difference for some of my constituents. I know that the Government are laser-focused on supporting our serving personnel and their families, and that this is only one step in our plans to change the lives of those who serve and who have served, and of their families.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke earlier, which specifies that the commissioner must engage with certain groups. I would have thought that to be expected as part of the role, so specifying them, as he rightly pointed out, makes the mistake of sometimes missing groups. I suggest that there is no need to divide the House on this issue, as it would be expected of any commissioner.

The Bill is about much more than policies and procedures. It is about recognising the immense sacrifices made by our service personnel, and providing them with the support they deserve and a healthier culture in which to serve our country. I commend the Government for taking that step for all regiments across the country—not just those based in Stafford. I urge all Members to support this vital legislation for our serving soldiers and serving personnel. It is only by supporting them that we can support the veterans of the future.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and to have the opportunity to hear from representatives of military charities and armed forces families organisations, as well as from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. I have also had the chance to discuss the Bill and the proposed amendments with representatives of our armed forces community in my constituency of Colchester, which is home to 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team and many veterans’ organisations. I also raised the Bill with the many people I met on fantastically insightful visits to Army facilities around the country as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—I thoroughly recommend that scheme to other Members—and today, I had the pleasure of meeting e50K, a defence-led community interest company supporting armed forces families navigating the challenges of service and civilian life.

There is a significant opportunity for the Bill to create a positive step change in the relationship between the defence community and the organisations currently in place to support it. My conversations with the various groups suggest that the current situation is that for advocacy, policy and complaints, there are multiple restrictions on what issues can be raised and how they can be raised. There is a need to change the current mindset of concern within the defence community about raising an issue without experiencing repercussions in terms of career progression and the chain of command. Regardless of whether that is the reality, it is the perception of many service families.

The Armed Forces Commissioner will change that by creating a new chance for the defence community to advocate for real change to meet their needs. Crucially, it will do that by reducing barriers and fostering a culture of being listened to, rather than being done to. It can only do that, however, if it is an independent office. My concern about the amendments is that, although they were considered and tabled in good faith, they have the potential to undermine the independence of the commissioner. It is that independence which is so vital.

I am very proud to support the Bill, and of the impact it will have in my constituency of Colchester and across the country for the future of our armed forces community.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I rise to speak primarily in support of amendment 8, but I will also give some broader reflections on the Bill.

We all need to be very clear that the welfare of service personnel is the responsibility of the military chain of command. No other supernumerary bureaucratic organisation can take that responsibility away from the chain of command. Personally, I am concerned that the Bill has the potential to undermine the authority of the chain of command, and I will expand on that theme. However, I also agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we have seen too many examples of service personnel being poorly treated in their service. If it were not for the fact that that was the case, arguably we would not have had a need for the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces and, now, for the Armed Forces Commissioner.

Having said that welfare is the responsibility of the chain of command, amendment 8 makes it very clear that ensuring a separation between the authority of that chain of command and the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner will be critical. As I understand it, the provenance of the Bill was that the Government thought the remit of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces was too narrow, so they have added in the responsibility for welfare.

Welfare is a very broad word. It means quite a lot to quite a lot of different people. For some people, it means housing. For others, it means education. It can mean myriad things. We know that, because General Rommel commented that the best form of welfare is better training, because better training makes for fewer widows. That is the way Rommel saw welfare. As I am mentioning Germany, the model for the commissioner is the German armed forces commissioner, which is there to ensure that the inalienable rights of the German armed forces are not impinged on by the giving of illegal orders. That is its sole remit, yet it has grown. In 40 years, it has never had a case where it has found that a member of the German armed forces has been given an illegal order, yet that organisation has grown to a staff of over 60, and its main areas of recommendation and concern are to do with equipment.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The German armed forces commissioner was the inspiration for the Bill, but the Government’s proposed commissioner is quite different. The German commissioner sits effectively as a Member of Parliament, and has parliamentary staff. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see the difference between the German legislation and this Bill?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do acknowledge that important difference. I think that amendment 8 seeks to enhance and strengthen the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner from the chain of command, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

The German armed forces commissioner finds herself reporting and making recommendations on matters such as equipment and undermanning—matters that are well beyond the inalienable human rights of German service personnel not to be given an illegal order. My watchword is that, untrammelled, this proposal will grow arms and legs. Not only have we widened it to cover welfare, which, as I have argued, is very broadly interpretable, but we are giving the Armed Forces Commissioner an “access all areas” pass. We have enabled members of armed forces families—wider families—to be in touch with the commissioner, something that the German model does not follow. While I support amendment 8 and the chain of command, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to put my views on record.

[Luke Akehurst]

The tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s remarks suggests that he does not really support the thrust of the Bill, and is extremely sceptical about the potential areas of involvement of the Armed Forces Commissioner per se. Having heard what was said from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, I was under the impression that there was consensus across the House in favour of the thrust of the Bill and that today we would be talking about nuance and detail, so I seek reassurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he does in fact support the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Member will recall from his time on the Bill Committee that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referred to us as fulfilling the role of critical friend.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Exactly.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I offer these comments as a critical friend. I think it important for people listening to this debate and referring to our proceedings at a later time to realise that, utterly untrammelled, these measures will generate a bureaucracy all of their own. We do not wish this to be a good idea that we have in peacetime that becomes a massive hindrance as we approach a period of conflict.

[Graeme Downie]

I congratulate the new Government on introducing the Bill so early in their term. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee, along with friends on both sides of the House, and to hear from the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman as well as from charities such as Poppy Scotland and the Royal British Legion. I thank the Clerks and Committee staff who helped and supported me, as a new Member serving for the first time on a Committee of that kind. It was particularly positive to hear the strong cross-party consensus in favour of the Bill, which was supported by both the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), although, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), I feared that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did not support it. I hope that that is not the case. I should add that I did not expect to be discussing the difference between the powers and political structures of the United States Senate and those of this Parliament with the shadow Minister, but it was very interesting and enjoyable.

I understand the need, in fact the duty, of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise legislation properly, but I hope that after today’s debate on the amendments, the House will speak with one voice in support of the Bill and there will be no need for Divisions. This Government have already shown their commitment to our armed forces by awarding the largest pay rise in over 20 years, tackling recruitment by removing outdated policies, and boosting retention through £8,000 payments to certain Army personnel and £30,000 to for some aircraft engineers. They are also doing more to support veterans. It was a pleasure to welcome the Veterans Minister to my constituency last week, where he visited Bravehound and Ghost Force K9, organisations run by veterans to support other veterans’ mental health through the walking and training of dogs.

15:14

The problems that the Bill seeks to begin to tackle are well known: 14 years of our armed forces being hollowed out and underfunded by the Conservative Government, and, in Scotland, an SNP Government with seemingly little interest in supporting serving personnel for their own petty political reasons, and failing even to properly recognise the role of the Scottish defence industry in our national economy. It is noticeable that once again, as we debate an issue that will affected armed forces personnel in Scotland, no SNP Members are present. We have a crisis in military morale and recruitment. Under the last Government, only four in 10 personnel reported that they were satisfied with service life, the lowest reported level on record. The impact on family life and personal life was the top factor influencing their decision to leave. Meanwhile, we live in an increasingly unstable world in which it seems more and more likely that our armed forces will be needed to play further roles around the world.

The Bill seeks to build on and expand the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That will allow the new commissioner to continue to respond on, and help with, specific issues, but crucially it will also enable him or her to conduct wider inquiries, and to investigate issues that affect general service welfare, including those affecting families. All that will be critical to the future success of our armed forces. The commissioner must be independent and free from Government interference, and must present a report to Parliament annually. I suspect that Ministers will not look forward to that event, as they will rightly be held to account not only by the commissioner but Members from all parts of the House, and indeed the public.

Let me address some of the amendments, and explain why I believe that the Bill should proceed unamended, following a constructive Committee stage. Amendment 10, proposed by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), seeks to specify further the role of the commissioner. Although I believe that it is well intentioned, being overly prescriptive in the Bill risks inadvertently compromising the independence of the commissioner, which will be vital to his or her success. In Committee, I raised that issue with Angela Kitching from the Royal British Legion, who felt that the term “general welfare” was sufficiently understood in the military, so I do not believe that we should seek to be more prescriptive than that.

Indeed, amendments 8 and 10, both in the name of the hon. Member for South Suffolk, appear contradictory, with amendment 8 seeking additional measures to cement independence from the Government, while amendment 10 would dilute that independence by adding unnecessary prescription. Moreover, we know that the issues the commissioner will seek to investigate will change and evolve over time, and I do not think it helpful to have that level of prescription in the Bill evermore, or until it is amended by primary legislation.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about both independence and the need for flexibility. Does he agree that the recently discovered serious problems with service housing might have been addressed better and sooner if there had been an independent figure whom service families as well as serving members of armed forces could approach?

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Housing issues are critical to ensuring that we recruit and retain the personnel we will require for the success that we want our armed forces to have.

[Dr Murrison]

Given the support that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) have expressed for improvements in service housing, which must be one of the principal issues affecting the welfare of serving members of armed forces, what is the hon. Gentleman’s objection to amendment 10? Given what he has said, I should have thought that he would be fully supportive of it.

[Graeme Downie]

I agree that housing is one of the issues that the commissioner will want to consider, and I hope that they will, in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, but I do not think it helpful to be prescriptive. We must ensure that the commissioner is fully independent and can determine their own priorities, and we should not seek to place requirements on them. Otherwise, Parliament will be dictating to them what they should do. I believe that they—and their staff, appointed through the appointments process—will be more than capable of doing that for themselves.

Amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, seeks to impose a timescale for the implementation of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, like other Members, wants to see the commissioner begin their new and expanded role as quickly as possible, but it is important that this be done fully and correctly. In Committee, I asked Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, how staff would cope with the additional powers that are being transferred. It was positive to hear that staff were excited about the new powers and believed them to be necessary; that is a sign that the legislation is both needed and framed correctly. On timescales, Mariette Hughes said that

“there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q6.]

Amendment 10 seeks to rush that process, and risks losing the good will within the ombudsman’s team. I come back to the importance of independence, and my belief that there must be a culture of independence from the beginning, without artificial deadlines or criteria being imposed. I know the Minister wants to move as quickly as possible with this legislation while ensuring its effectiveness, and I ask him to comment on the timescale, but I do not believe that the amendment is required.

I turn to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, and which is mentioned in new clause 2: relationships with veterans commissioners and the devolved Administrations. Given that I was the only Scottish Member on the Public Bill Committee, ensuring that this legislation is effective for my constituents is one of my key concerns. When I asked Mariette Hughes about this issue in Committee, she was incredibly practical and clearly focused on the need to solve problems with the devolved Administrations, rather than taking a heavy-handed approach. In my view, her approach is correct. She said that she would work

“with the devolved Administrations…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.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q7.]

In Committee, I asked the Minister about housing, which has been discussed. I was reassured by his response that

“if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 68, Q108.]

That is the kind of constructive scrutiny that I would like to see, and I feel that new clause 2 is heavy-handed in its dealing with the devolved Administrations. An annual report will be presented to this House; I am sure that MSP colleagues of all political parties, as well as Scottish MPs, will be quick to hold a Scottish Government of any political stripe to account when recommendations are made to them.

New clause 2 does not take account of the fact that the power to tackle issues such as housing lies not with veterans commissioners, or even with the Scottish Government, but with local councils, which are even closer to communities. I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, abhors central control from a distant place, so I am sure that he will agree that seeking to control housing policy in Fife or Moray from London is not appropriate. I urge Members to reject new clause 2.

As I said, the fact that the Government brought forward this legislation so early on and the other positive steps that have been taken to support our armed forces and veterans show the commitment of the Labour party and this Government to supporting both. I hope that we can maintain the positive tone of discussions on the Bill to date, and that we can speak with one voice this evening and pass this legislation without amendment.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

May I say how delighted I am to see the introduction of a commissioner for our armed forces and veterans? It is badly needed, and I am sure that the commissioner will be appreciated and will make vast improvements to the welfare of our people.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for tabling new clause 1, because we have volunteers in the Territorial Army who are highly respected and valued, yet they get rejected when they apply to the Army. They do not feel that they are given any explanation of why they are not accepted by the armed forces, and new clause 1 would address that. It is really bad for morale when people do not get told exactly why they have not been accepted. I truly welcome this Bill.

[Jacob Collier]

I rise to lend my full support to this Bill, and I will shortly speak to the amendments in the name of the Opposition. The Bill represents a long-overdue step towards supporting the welfare and rights of service personnel and their families. I have a brother in our armed forces, and I am grateful to have a Government who recognise the value of being challenged to deliver more for our service personnel and for military families like mine. The introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an opportunity to provide independent and robust oversight to ensure that we in this place, and all parts of Government, do right by all who serve.

Our nation and its armed forces are inseparable. In Burton and Uttoxeter, we have so many military families like mine; we feel immense pride in the service of our loved ones. At a moment’s notice, they stand ready to protect our nation and all that we hold dear. Regardless of whether it is a soldier posted overseas, a sailor patrolling distant waters or a pilot protecting our skies, their wellbeing, and that of their families, should be at the heart of any Government policy. This Bill achieves precisely that by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner who can investigate, advocate and hold the system to account. The commissioner will not just respond to complaints, but proactively examine the issues affecting service life, from housing and healthcare to the transition to civilian life and the schooling of service children. The role will deliver real improvements, and it will challenge this Parliament and this Government, so I hope that those on the Front Bench are fully prepared for that.

I am mindful of amendments 9 and 10. Although their intentions may be laudable, I think they miss the point. Amendment 9 proposes that the commissioner’s remit explicitly include pensions and death-in-service benefits for serving and former members of the armed forces. That might seem fair at first glance, but I am firmly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and risks undermining the effectiveness of the commissioner’s work. As defined by the Bill, the commissioner’s role is already expansive, covering the full spectrum of welfare concerns for service personnel and their families.

Amendment 9 risks narrowing the commissioner’s focus, and could lead to a disproportionate allocation of time and resources to one area at the expense of other pressing welfare concerns. The commissioner must have the freedom to determine their priorities, based on the evidence that they receive from service personnel, veterans and their families. The commissioner’s work should not be restrained by this Parliament prescribing specific areas of focus, no matter how good its intentions. Let us trust that the Bill gives the commissioner the independence that they require to do the job effectively. To prescribe excessively is to risk diluting the authority and focus of this legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said. He was bang on the money, if the House pardons the pun.

Similarly, amendment 10 seeks to explicitly include issues affecting children, family and dependants. Although I fully recognise the importance of supporting the families of our service personnel, this amendment raises several concerns. The commissioner’s role is already designed to allow them to advocate comprehensively for the welfare of service families. There is no doubt that issues such as education allowances, special needs tuition and housing fall squarely within that remit. The commissioner must have the flexibility to address the full spectrum of welfare issues, and must not be bound by a rigid checklist dictated by this House. We must trust that the commissioner will engage with service families effectively, without Parliament micromanaging their work. I am sure that all of us in this House have topics that we would want the commissioner to focus on, but the point is that it is not up to us.

This Bill represents progress, and a move towards ensuring that our military personnel and their families feel heard, valued and supported. It sends a clear message that their voice matters, that their welfare matters and that their service to our country is not taken for granted. We on these Benches have consistently supported measures that champion the rights and wellbeing of all those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill aligns with those values, and I urge colleagues to wholeheartedly support it tonight.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. I came into politics to improve people’s lives, and I believe that the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner will do just that by providing a voice to members of our armed forces community who have been ignored for far too long. As the Prime Minister said during the King’s Speech debate last year, this is not just a “name or a role”; it is a way in which we can show our respect for those who have committed their lives to the ultimate service. Indeed, my own father served as a gunner in the Royal Artillery, taking him to Northern Ireland, Germany, Cyprus and Canada, so I have some idea of the sacrifice made by our servicemen and women and their families. This is yet another instance of this Government delivering on their promises. We made a manifesto commitment to strengthen support for our armed forces personnel and the families who support them by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, and here we are now, getting on with it.

15:30

The simple fact is that the current system is broken after 14 years of the Conservatives regrettably burying their heads in the sand. No one should have to live in damp housing or use food banks to get by, least of all the families of our brave armed forces. We know that, sadly, only four in 10 service personnel say that they are satisfied with service life in general. We will all be conscious of the shocking reports of the experiences of female personnel in particular over recent years. These are totally unacceptable, so I was reassured to see the former Member for Wrexham, who chaired a Defence Committee inquiry into women in the armed forces, express her support for the Bill.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), would ensure that the commissioner published annual reports to outline what was being done to support minority groups in the armed forces. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would ensure that the commissioner was an important tool in helping to achieve the target of women accounting for 30% of armed forces personnel recruited by 2030?

[Phil Brickell]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, but I will not be supporting that amendment. I hope that we will be able to pass the Bill unamended, and I will defer to the Minister to address that question directly.

I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) about the independence of the commissioner, and particularly his comments on amendment 6. We live in a dangerous world, so when it comes to the men and women who are tasked with keeping us safe, we must ensure that we return the favour by making sure that they are treated with respect. We should not delude ourselves by seeing the Armed Forces Commissioner as a silver bullet. I welcome this Government’s commitment to a new strengthened armed forces covenant, which would enshrine in law the respect due to members and former members of our military.

As many Members know, the military estate’s houses, barracks and other facilities are in an appalling condition and, frankly, unfit to house many of our servicemen and women and their families. I welcome measures from the Government to conduct a medium to long-term review, but I would simply urge Ministers not to kick the can down the road on an issue that has persisted for far, far too long. Financial wellbeing, gaps in medical discharge processes, mental health support failures—there is a lot to do, but the initial signs are good.

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany and someone with a number of family members in Germany, I would like to note that this position has been modelled on its long-established and successful German counterpart, as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) rightly mentioned. It is refreshing to see a Government seeking to improve life in the UK by drawing inspiration from the successful policies of our closest allies in Europe. I sincerely hope that we can pass the Bill today to provide the support our military personnel and their families so urgently deserve.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill stands as a critical piece of legislation that will establish an independent champion for our servicemen and women, as well as their families. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment and represents a significant step forward in renewing our nation’s contract with those who serve us, so it is positive to see its continued and rapid progression into law. Today, our Opposition colleagues have tabled a number of amendments, and I want to speak to several of them in turn. On new clause 1, the Government are implementing measures to address our current challenges with recruitment and retention. Expanding the commissioner’s scope to include all applicants could overwhelm the office and detract from its core mission of supporting current service personnel and their families.

The previous Conservative Government hollowed out and underfunded our armed forces. Morale in the military is at a record low, and we are facing a recruitment and retention crisis. Many of those who want to join our armed forces wait far too long, and the Government are committed to fixing this through measures such as the new 10-30 provision, under which applicants will be given a provisional offer to join the armed forces within 10 days of applying, and a provisional start date within 30 days.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member describes morale as being at an all-time low. Last week, along with a number of colleagues from the Defence Committee, we both had the opportunity to visit RAF Lossiemouth, where we saw a range of service personnel at the top of their game. I am intrigued to know whether he would characterise their morale as being at an all-time low, or whether he thinks the election of a Labour Government in July has had the rapid effect he describes.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. and gallant Member is correct that we visited RAF Lossiemouth last week, where we saw people at the top of their game, doing what servicepeople do, which is coping, doing their job and putting a brave face on things. However, the continuous attitude survey shows the stress behind those things. The service they are, to some degree, enduring could be made better. Although servicepeople put a good face on their morale when we see them, that does not mean our services are in the buoyant state they could be.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that an easy way to measure morale is through retention rates? We are not recruiting and retaining armed forces personnel to the degree we would wish. Part of the motivation for introducing this Bill to address general service welfare issues—I am making sure that I use the correct language about what the Armed Forces Commissioner role covers—is to have an operational impact by making it easier to recruit people to the armed forces. And once we train them at great expense, we must retain them for the longest possible period of viable service.

[Mr Bailey]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We do not expect service personnel to stand up and openly tell us their problems, as that is part of what makes them resilient. The important thing about having an Armed Forces Commissioner is that they can see through that. The gallant Members of this House will be able to see through those things, and it would be wrong to politicise what people present of themselves during our visits, rather than what we would like them to make known, for political gain.

The truth, as my hon. Friend makes perfectly clear, is that we are not doing a very good job of recruiting and retaining personnel. The objection to new clause 1 is that it is important to focus on the specific needs that will enable us to have better recruitment and retention, because that is where we are failing. Perhaps that is why the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is now in this House, rather than continuing his illustrious career.

The Government have also introduced a new cyber pathway to bring the best and brightest into our armed forces and to rebuild our defences for the future, particularly given the grey zone threats from Russia about which the Select Committee heard evidence this morning. This is also positive, but with 150,000 applicants attempting to join the military at any one time, if all those individuals were brought under the scope of the commissioner, as would happen if the new clause were enacted, that would vastly increase the commissioner’s workload and, ultimately, impact their efficiency and effectiveness. In proposing the new clause, Conservative Members are attempting to address a genuine problem, but I have concerns that, in practice, it could mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they rightly need.

On new clause 2, while the Armed Forces Commissioner’s role is focused on serving personnel, the Government are implementing a broader strategy of support for the entire armed forces community, including veterans, through various initiatives and legal protections. All veterans, including those sitting on the Opposition Benches, make an important contribution to our communities and our armed forces. However, the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit is purposefully defined narrowly to focus on issues currently impacting service personnel and their families. That allows the commissioner to effectively address immediate concerns facing those in uniform, including some of those that most concern me and most seriously affect retention for women and people from ethnic minorities, such as bullying and harassment.

The Bill is just one step in Labour’s plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served, and their families. Our Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire armed forces community, recognising that the issue of veteran support is distinct from those issues addressed by the Bill. The Government are working to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, ensuring fairness and respect to veterans and their families. Recent initiatives include a £75 million LGBT financial recognition scheme, acknowledging the historic wrongs experienced by our LGBT veterans; making the veterans card an accepted form of voter ID, crucial to mobile service members, as I know from my own experience; and committing £3.5 million for veteran homelessness support, including wraparound services for at-risk veterans.

While the Armed Forces Commissioner will primarily deal with those affected by service law, they will have the discretion to invite opinion from a broader range of stakeholders, including veterans, when conducting investigations. I would expect the commissioner to regularly use that power, as it is a critical part of their role, as Conservative Members have said. I hope Conversative Members recognise that flexibility is important in the Bill, as it will allow the commissioner to gather comprehensive insight in the exercise of their duties, but does not limit their independence or freedom to lead by narrowing their focus.

On amendment 7, while focused on serving personnel, the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner complements the broader armed forces covenant and existing legislation to support the entire military community. The armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who have served in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, as well as veterans and their families. Our Government are fully committed to the covenant and our election manifesto pledge was to put the covenant fully into law.

The Armed Forces Commissioner’s role focuses primarily on members of the serving community and their families, but they will undoubtedly consider covenant issues related to active service members and their families as part of general service welfare matters, as outlined in the Bill. That aligns with the commissioner’s functions to promote the welfare of service persons and their families, and to improve public understanding of the issues.

It is important to note that the Bill is not standalone legislation. Instead, it amends part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which already includes part 16A addressing the armed forces covenant. Therefore, amendment 7 is not necessary. By integrating the commissioner’s role into the existing framework, we ensure a comprehensive approach to supporting both current and former members of the armed forces, reinforcing our commitment to the entire military community.

Amendment 8 would require the commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from interference when carrying out their duties. In response, the Bill provides greater independence and scrutiny for those upholding the welfare of armed forces personnel. I welcome that role, which will be subject to a full public appointment process and scrutiny by the Defence Committee, as mentioned earlier by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).

The commissioner will be established as a corporation sole and will thus be independent of the Ministry of Defence, which is clearly important to give them the ability to hold people to account effectively. The commissioner will have discretion over what they investigate and the proactive power to launch investigations. Those provisions mean that the commissioner will stay focused on general service welfare matters and will be expected to have regular meetings with the chain of command. However, I fully agree that independence for the chain of command is vital.

15:44

As a member of the Defence Committee, I had the opportunity to question the Service Complaints Ombudsman on a point that many members of the armed forces have raised with me since, around the independence of the current complaints process from the chain of command. Will the Minister provide clarification on how the commissioner will close that gap and the gaps that allow for abuses by commanding officers?

I want to emphasise how important a shift the new powers and independence of the commissioner will be. That will mark a significant improvement on the current ombudsman’s limited scope. The commissioner will retain the independence to make arrangements for their office. They will also be able to decide how to spend their money and which issues they choose to investigate. Currently, the Service Complaints Ombudsman has only the power to investigate formal service complaints, as she stressed last week. However, the current defence guidance encourages informal complaint resolutions at the lowest level. In my view, that emphasis can be inappropriate when dealing with complaints such as harassment and discrimination. Abusers can survive an informal resolution and move on to continue their abuse elsewhere.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. and gallant Member referred to the armed forces complaints ombudsman giving evidence to the Defence Committee last week. Her report from 2023 detailed that three complaints were made against the ombudsman organisation itself. Was he as dismayed as I was that she was not able to recall the details of the one complaint of those three that was upheld?

[Mr Bailey]

The ombudsman who came to speak to us the other day gave a clear account of the challenges and issues that she faced and elucidated on a number of challenges around addressing the specificity of any individual complaints that she had been made aware of, due to the distance between the complaint and her appearance before the Committee. I think it is worth reviewing the entirety of her evidence because, for me, it did nothing more than emphasise the need for the Bill to be passed as drafted and to take note of my challenges to the amendment.

On the wider status of the service complaints system, efforts to enhance consistency and accessibility are ongoing. I take this moment to thank the ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work to improve the service complaints system. It was clear from her responses to our questions last week that she was conscious of the need to continue improving the system throughout the transition to a new commissioner.

I am sure the Ministry will continue its work to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman’s office, particularly in ensuring that there is a single entry point for complaints and a consistent approach in the recording of all the grievances across defence, as laid down in successive annual reports.

On amendment 6, the Government are committed to swiftly establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner through a rigorous appointment process, ensuring that the role is filled by a highly qualified and security-cleared individual who can advocate effectively for the armed forces community. Although the Bill does not detail a specific implementation timetable, which colleagues will know is typical of primary legislation, this is a priority for the Government. I believe that colleagues from all parts of the House will recognise that the appointment process must be done correctly. The appointment will be subject to a full public appointments process, regulated and overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This process will include necessary vetting and security clearances, building trust among armed forces personnel that the appointment—[Interruption.] The implementation timeline will also account for the passing of the secondary legislation and a smooth transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new Armed Forces Commissioner—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Does the hon. Member require a moment?

[Mr Bailey]

No.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Are you happy to continue?

[Mr Bailey]

Yes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Wonderful.

[Mr Bailey]

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner will provide a powerful voice for service personnel and their families, ensuring that their concerns are heard and addressed at the highest levels. As we move forward with the Bill, we must remain vigilant in our efforts to improve service life, address systemic issues and uphold the highest standards of behaviour within our military. The success of the new role demands, and depends on, our continued support and scrutiny. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that this Bill will have on the lives of those who serve our nation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

[Graeme Downie]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says:

“The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.”

[Graeme Downie]

I am very much enjoying the right hon. Member’s remarks from the Dispatch Box, as I always do, but he is discussing an issue that is definitely not within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it would be better to move on to the areas where—hopefully—we have cross-party consensus.

[Mr Francois]

First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected.

This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

16:00

As I did in Committee, let me take an example of how that might affect a senior non-commissioned officer. An individual at OR 9 rank equivalent, a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned officer rank structure, 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 £62,000 salary. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pensioned assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, and if the death-in-service benefits are included in the estate, that will increase the estate’s value to £648,292, and the IHT liability will increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents a staggering increase of 330%.

In a briefing it prepared on this issue, the Forces Pension Society explained that worrisome problem in the following terms:

“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.”

The Forces Pension Society then elucidates:

“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.”

I should say in fairness that the Forces Pension Society has suggested that the Government have made an error, and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs so contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

When I have finished this point, yes.

The Forces Pension Society points out that the system is recoverable because the changes are subject to a consultation and are not currently due to come in until April 2027. Nevertheless, this is still a potentially worrying situation, especially for armed forces families in which parents are in a committed relationship with multiple children but have not, for whatever reason, decided to marry.

We were prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt about that in Committee. Indeed, without wishing to be uncharitable, when I raised it he seemed slightly taken aback by the problem. I say that because my suspicion is that when the Treasury came up with this, the Ministry of Defence was blissfully unaware of it. I therefore suggest that MOD Ministers may not be directly at fault, but it is nevertheless their personnel and families who may be affected. Towards the conclusion of the Committee, I strongly suggested to the Armed Forces Minister that he should take this away for discussions with the Treasury, as there will be a consultation exercise on the changes before they come into force in the 2026-27 financial year, with the opportunity to change the policy and avert the problem.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “Your leadership” refers to me, and it is up to the Chair to determine what is in scope. For the benefit of other colleagues, it is up to the speaker to accept or decline an intervention. Do you have more to say, Mr Bailey, or shall I return to the shadow Minister?

[Mr Bailey]

No thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I am just going to reply to this one. Forgive me, but if my remarks were not in order, we would have been told so by now. Maybe one day, after many years of distinguished service, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) will become a Deputy Speaker of this House, but not today.

I will continue, and then I will take the other intervention. We really need to do something about this issue. As the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, it would be totally contrary to the principles of the armed forces covenant—including the principle that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to the Crown—if this were to go unanswered, and unmarried service widows and their families were to be punished in this way.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for being patient.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised some interesting specific policy issues that are clearly of concern to large numbers of people receiving armed forces pensions, but the Bill makes it clear—and Ministers have been very clear throughout its consideration—that the independent commissioner will decide for themselves what is a general service welfare matter, and therefore whether they want to look into the issues raised by amendments 9 and 10. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the apparent contradiction between Opposition Members insisting in amendment 8 that they want reassurance about the independence of the commissioner, and their wanting to predetermine the very specific topics that the commissioner would investigate through amendments 9 and 10?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about.

This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter:

“I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.”

However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well.

I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due.

Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However, I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well.

The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA.

Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be

“to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.”

I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board.

We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic.

The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would

“monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.”

The spending review—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, please do not read out all the quotes, but come to your conclusion.

[Mr Francois]

I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.

16:15

Finally, on our new clause 2, we had a considerable debate in Committee about the relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the various veterans commissioners, a point touched on by our friends from Northern Ireland, and I place on record my admiration for the previous Northern Ireland veterans commissioner, Mr Danny Kinahan, an ex-serviceman who was widely respected across the sectarian and political divide in Northern Ireland. It is a great shame that he resigned.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has possibly more veterans per head of population than any other constituent part of the United Kingdom. Thousands served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment alongside the British Army regiments during their tours in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the new veterans commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, who has also served with distinction, and does he agree with the call of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) today that this should be a fully funded and full-time post in Northern Ireland, given the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Francois]

I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow.

In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and all who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is a landmark step towards fulfilling this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve by strengthening support for our armed forces, and their families, who stand behind them. Our forces face a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale that this Government inherited after 14 years of a Conservative Government; only four in 10 of our service personnel report being satisfied with service life. We need this Bill to establish a champion who can shine a light on the general service welfare matters most affecting our people, so that we in this House can understand those issues and hold this Government and future Governments to account.

I will turn to each of the amendments proposed. New clause 1 in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to bring those going through the recruitment process into the commissioner’s remit. We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis. That is why the Secretary of State laid out a number of policies to improve our recruitment policy early doors. One of them is the 10-30 policy, so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey): the policy that a provisional offer will be made within 10 days of an application to the armed forces, and a provisional start date will be given within 30 days. That is a substantial step forward for those joining our armed forces. Some 84% of those who seek to join the armed forces drop out of the process because it takes too long. That is an utter scandal that this Government are determined to address. That is why the 10-30 policy was put in place, and why the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People and I have focused on improving our retention and recruitment policies. It is also why I have to resist the hon. Lady’s amendments—because the focus of this Bill is on those who serve and their families. They have been neglected for far too long. That is why this Bill is relentlessly and unapologetically focused on providing an independent champion for them.

I understand why the hon. Lady seeks to include recruits in the scope of the Bill. That would mean 150,000 candidates every single year being added to the workforce on which the commissioner is focused. Our job as a Government is to make it easier to convert more of those applicants into military personnel, and the new lateral entry into cyber work announced by the Defence Secretary is a good example of that, but the commissioner’s focus should remain on those who serve and their families.

New clause 2, on veterans, tabled by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is about ensuring decent engagement with veterans commissioners across the country, and with the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The manifesto commitment on which the Bill delivers is clear: it is a commitment to addressing the gap in support for military personnel. The commissioner is to highlight the issues affecting personnel today, not matters from the past.

I understand why the hon. Member tabled the new clause, and with the Government’s new role of Minister for Veterans and People, we have made clear our intention of improving the support that we offer veterans, but the commissioner’s role is to support service personnel and their families. It is also the role of the commissioner to decide independently which general service welfare matters they should investigate. That freedom and independence are vital to the role, so it is important to keep the commissioner’s freedom to decide whom to engage with. However, I reassure the hon. Member that I would expect that once the commissioner was established, their terms of reference would be established for engagement with a variety of organisations from the charitable and military charity sectors, including bodies that represent veterans, and veterans commissioners across the UK. I therefore think that the effect of what he seeks will be provided in our implementation of the Bill, so the new clause is unnecessary.

Amendment 7, on the covenant, is also well intentioned. It is important to realise that this is not a stand-alone Bill; it amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, part 16A of which deals with the covenant. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has sought to make the covenant apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but I reassure her that as this Bill will insert provisions relating to the Armed Forces Commissioner into the Armed Forces Act, they will already grip in that way. I further reassure her that later this Parliament, the Government will bring forward proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on our manifesto commitment of putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. I therefore feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but I understand and entirely appreciate why she wanted to bring it forward. I hope that all of us can lend our support to the further implementation of the armed forces covenant, so that it grips not just local but central Government.

On amendment 8, which is on independence, I hope that there is no doubt that the intention that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for our armed forces and hold this and future Governments to account is clear in the legislation, and from commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have made at the Dispatch Box. I therefore generally welcome the principle of the amendment, which we discussed in detail in Committee. The Bill already has a number of provisions to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct their inquiries separately from Government. Those provisions include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate, their reporting powers, their power of entry to defence sites to carry out their functions—without notice, in some circumstances—and an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner. Many of those functions will be transferred from the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The ombudsman has highlighted in her evidence that she already feels a strong degree of independence from the Ministry of Defence on decision making. That matters, and I have echoed that in the Bill.

There are important circumstances where it is critical that the commissioner cannot act purely on their own initiative—I refer to the Secretary of State restricting access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason to do so. A legal power for the commissioner to act without influence or interference would make that impossible. Certainly in previous conversations, the Opposition have been keen to ensure a suitable qualification to the power to access secret and very sensitive sites, and the amendment would actually go against the argument that they have made elsewhere, so I hope that they will not press the amendment.

I thank the House for its views on amendments 5 and 6 from the Liberal Democrats on the appointment of the commissioner. It is our intention that the commissioner will be in place in 2026. The reason why we have had not only Second Reading and a full Committee stage but Report so soon into this new Government is that we want the commissioner put in place as soon as possible. Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.

Let me briefly refer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee. We expect robust scrutiny of any candidate that the Secretary of State puts forward for this role. We expect the relationship that the commissioner has with the Defence Committee to be above and beyond other relationships, because when the commissioner publishes a report, under the Bill, it will not be sent to the Ministry of Defence to decide what to do with it—except in the case of a national security scrub, and I am certain that every Member in this House will understand why that is. It will be sent to Parliament, including to the Defence Committee. In that respect, the relationship between the commissioner and the Defence Committee will be more enhanced than perhaps the relationship between the Service Complaints Ombudsman and the Committee.

On the robust decisions that the commissioner will make, my hon. Friend may be aware that on page 9 of the Bill, paragraph 7 of schedule 1 includes a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to interim roles if the full appointment process has not been completed. Given the powers afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the ability of that organisation to function is greatly restricted if there is a vacancy in that office. We have learned from that, and provided a power to ensure that the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner could continue in the absence of a permanent post holder. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am eager for the commissioner to be established, and for their office to be operational as soon as practically possible.

On amendment 3 on funding, the Bill has been designed to ensure that the commissioner has the tools, funding and support that they need, now and in future. The Secretary of State has an obligation in the Bill to give the commissioner any reasonable assistance that they request to conduct their work effectively. Should the commissioner feel that their funding—estimated to be in the region of £5 million a year—is insufficient, they can raise this in their annual report, which is one of the mechanisms for providing additional scrutiny to Parliament.

On the family definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, she will be aware that we have committed to setting out the definition of family members in secondary legislation, so that it can be updated if necessary. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and when trying to define “family”, it is important that we consult and get views from a wide range of people. We want to make sure that the definition in the legislation is as accurate as possible, and includes bereaved family members of service personnel, so that they can still access the commissioner. I hope that gives her reassurance.

On the inclusion of minority groups, speaking as someone who represents one of the minority communities that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, let me be clear that we want the commissioner to engage with a whole range of different communities in our armed forces family. It is important that they do. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a non-exhaustive list that left out people with disabilities would be a concern, because I think the hon. Lady’s intention is to focus on minorities. We would expect the commissioner to be able to make a decision themselves in order to deliver that engagement.

[Helen Maguire]

I know the Minister will have read amendment 2 in detail, and is aware that it includes the words “including but not limited to”, and therefore includes individuals with disabilities and others. That is what the hon. Members for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), were concerned about.

[Luke Pollard]

That highlights the danger of a list. In future amendments that the hon. Lady tables, I would expect her to veer away from lists to avoid that problem.

Briefly, on the inheritance tax that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, the Minister for Veterans and People has replied to him, as I said he would in Defence questions on 6 January. Provisions in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 will continue to ensure that attributable deaths of active members are exempt from inheritance tax. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Treasury, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the result of the genuine consultation being conducted by Treasury colleagues. He may need to wait until the Treasury has had a chance to consider the matter. I expect, nonetheless, that he will push his amendment to a vote, because there is a certain level of politics that I appreciate he has to play. It is certainly true that our armed forces deserve better than they have experienced over the past 14 years. Hollowed out and underfunded services, servicemen and women living in accommodation that, frankly, is not good enough, and morale falling every single year of the past 14 years—these are the areas that this Government seek to change.

The landmark Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will deliver a better service for our armed forces and, importantly, their families. We have a lot of work to undo the damage, but I hope the message goes out loud and clear from this House that the creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner—a champion for those serving in our military and for their families—is a good thing that enjoys cross-party support. I urge all colleagues to support the Bill.

[Helen Maguire]

I am happy with the reassurance received from the Government, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare

Amendment proposed: 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”.—(Mr Francois.)

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:30

Division 87

Ayes: 192

Noes: 338

Amendment proposed: 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) themaintenance of service families’ accommodation.” —(Mr Francois.)

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:44

Division 88

Ayes: 191

Noes: 338

Amendment proposed: 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”—(Helen Maguire.)

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

16:58

Division 89

Ayes: 76

Noes: 349

Third Reading

17:10

[Luke Pollard]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is a privilege to open the Third Reading debate and to reach this next milestone in establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner. The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. At the heart of that security are the dedicated men and women of our armed forces, and the families who support them. It was a priority for this Government to move quickly and introduce the Bill in our first Session. I am grateful to all Members across the parties for their co-operation in getting the Bill this far in the short space of a few months.

I thank everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage, particularly the parliamentary staff who have worked on the Bill, and the officials in the Ministry of Defence who have moved at pace to deliver it.

It can be an all-too-rare occasion for this House to find itself in agreement, so I am grateful to Members on all sides, including those in the official Opposition, for their support for the Bill and for the role of the new Armed Forces Commissioner. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), alongside all members of the Bill Committee, for their constructive scrutiny throughout. This is testament to the pride that is felt in all parts of the House in our exceptional armed forces and our shared recognition of the service and sacrifices that they and their families make to keep us all safe.

I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee, including the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, Mariette Hughes, who has provided invaluable feedback, drawing on her time in office, and showed such enthusiastic support for what the Bill is trying to achieve. I must thank her and her team for all their hard work in rescuing much of the service complaints system and getting it in the good shape that it is in today.

I say thank you to the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes, SSAFA, Cobseo, the Defence Medical Welfare Service, the Army Benevolent Fund, the Royal Marines Charity, the RAF Benevolent Fund and the Army Families Federation, not only for their valuable and thought-provoking participation at Committee stage, but also for their tireless work representing our service personnel and their families. Their views will be crucial to ensuring that the commissioner is a success.

I think it is clear from the evidence that we have heard and from the views shared in this House that an independent Armed Forces Commissioner is the champion that we need to improve service life and to represent our serving personnel and their families.

At a time of increasing instability and heightened tensions, we are asking more of our serving personnel, but they have been badly let down and we are facing a crisis in recruitment, a crisis in retention and a crisis in morale. For the past two years, more people have been leaving our armed forces than joining, and morale hit a record low under the previous Government. Our forces and their families have been failed for far too long. That is why this Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step forward.

I previously mentioned to the House that the Bill was inspired by the long-established German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. I pay tribute to Dr Eva Högl, who is a superb example of how we can champion and provide a voice to our armed forces. Our proposed Armed Forces Commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of welfare issues that may impact service life. They will be a direct point of contact for our forces and their families.

The Bill before us grants the commissioner the necessary access to personnel, information and defence sites to be able to proactively launch investigations, shine a spotlight on issues facing service personnel and their families, and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to investigate individual concerns and launch wide-ranging thematic investigations. The Bill also provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. As we heard from the current ombudsman in Committee, her remit is too narrow and does not allow her to explore the “So what?” behind the complaints she oversees. The new powers will allow the commissioner to do just that, situating the service complaints system in a wider landscape of service welfare and providing that coherent, independent view of those issues facing our serving personnel and their families.

At this time of increasing threat, it has never been more important to raise awareness of the service and sacrifices made by our armed forces and the issues facing the families who stand beside them. We have discussed on the Floor of the House today, and in Committee last month, how critical it is for the commissioner to be independent and impartial, with the discretion to decide what welfare issues they investigate. I hope there is no doubt that our intention is that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for the armed forces and hold this Government and future Governments to account. They will challenge Ministers, strengthen parliamentary oversight and raise awareness of the issues facing our forces.

Several hon. Members from across the House have spoken about the Bill’s application to veterans. I am grateful for those questions and particularly for the contributions of those who have served our armed forces. I would like to reiterate that the Bill is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on those who are currently serving and their families. Looking at the continuous attitude surveys, that is where the crisis we are facing in recruitment, retention and morale is. There are specific issues that need to be addressed for those people who serve in uniform today and their families. The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner as an independent champion for our forces is significant and long overdue.

The issues facing our veterans population are distinct and, as the Secretary of State set out on Second Reading, we are certain that a more effective way of improving support for veterans will be to fully implement the armed forces covenant in law—work that is already in train, led by the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns).

In conclusion, we must renew the whole nation’s contract with those who serve. The Armed Forces Commissioner is a major step in commencing that important work. This is landmark legislation to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with the mission to improve service life. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

17:17

[James Cartlidge]

I congratulate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the passage of the Bill and served on the Bill Committee. As I said on Second Reading, we recognise that the Government have a clear mandate for this piece of legislation, which has the worthy goal of improving day-to-day service life in our armed forces. We strongly share that goal and want the Bill to succeed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) said, we also have performed the role of a critical friend of the Bill and have raised a number of specific issues. The shadow Veterans and Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised important points, which we have put forward in amendments. In fact, both relate to tax measures that have come forward under this tax-raising Government on death in service and continuity of education allowance, known as CEA.

The key thing I would say on death in service, in response to what the Minister said on Report, is that of course we understand that a consultation is happening on inheritance tax, which expires tomorrow. What we want to know is that the Ministry of Defence has communicated to the Treasury that it opposes the measure and hopes that it will not be imposed on those who serve in our armed forces, because it would be a disproportionate and significant increase in inheritance tax. As my right hon. Friend put it in a moving speech about the impact it would have, I am sure none of us in the Chamber would want to see that, so we hope that the Minister has written to the Treasury and that it listens to his advice and cancels the proposal.

There is a very simple reason why we moved amendment 10 on the continuity of education allowance. We want the Department to continue monitoring the impact of the new tax on those who serve in the military and choose to send their children to independent schools, not least because of the stability that those schools provide in a life that is subject to the opposite, particularly for those who are deployed abroad. The allowance gives them stability through access to schools at which their children can board, and of course most of that capacity is in the independent sector, which is now subject to a huge 20% tax imposition. We want that monitored by the Armed Forces Commissioner. If anyone doubts the reason for that, our office has received many emails from serving personnel—people in the Army, Navy and Air Force today—who are extremely concerned about the impact on them, and are having to weigh up their future. I will read an extract from one email that I received from the wife of an Army officer with two children in boarding school—one in junior school, and one in senior school. She says:

“With the sudden introduction of VAT on school fees—something that was not foreseen when we made our decision—we will face an additional £14,500 per year in costs. This is simply not sustainable for our family, and my husband is now considering leaving the Army as a result.”

This is not a minor matter. If we are worried about retention, surely the last thing any of us wants is for people like that to consider leaving. We are disappointed that the amendment was defeated, but the parliamentary arithmetic speaks for itself.

Finally, on accommodation, which is an incredibly important issue, I remind the House of what I said on Second Reading. I said that, in my time as Minister for Defence Procurement with responsibility for the defence estate,

“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”.—[Official Report, 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 78.]

I am delighted that since I said that, the Government have concluded that deal. I started the negotiations on the deal when I was a Minister, following the successful legal challenges initiated by the preceding Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, and the deal was brought forward with huge effort in the Department—particularly, I must say, from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. DIO has come in for criticism in some reports—in response to the winter problems that we had two years ago, for example—but my experience was that its leadership was as passionate as I was about getting that deal through, and we are now in a far better position.

Why does that matter? Well, there are many welfare issues that the commissioner will have to think about, but as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), said, accommodation will surely feature prominently, and we now have the means to address that issue strategically, rather than through year-to-year sticking-plasters. I assure the House and Ministers that, given my role in driving that deal forward, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, who shares my passion for housing and armed forces accommodation, will seek to contribute to the plan to move forward to a better defence estate. In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to engage on these matters as the Armed Forces Commissioner becomes a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.