Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

18:37

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, namely that my son-in-law is an active reservist in the British Army.

It is an honour to move the Second Reading of a Bill that received cross-party parliamentary support in the other place. Noble Lords will know that the first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. That is why last week the Prime Minister announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, ahead of a further anticipated rise to 3% in the next Parliament. It is also why the Prime Minister has shown determined leadership in the search for an end to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, because Ukraine’s front line in the defence of its sovereignty is also the front line of our security.

I thank noble Lords for their many words of support at this challenging time for our nation and allies as we seek the best way forward. The unity of purpose rings out from this Chamber. At the heart of our diplomatic efforts to end the conflict are the men and women of our Armed Forces—the dedicated professionals who would provide the boots on the ground, and aircraft overhead, to support any such peace deal—behind whom are thousands of supportive families, whose own sacrifices underpin military service.

Like many noble Lords, I have had the privilege of meeting serving personnel, both at home and overseas, from visiting troops on NATO’s front line in Poland to those dismantling IEDs to counter the Boko Haram threat in Nigeria and those on training exercises in Bosnia, as well as visiting the carrier the “Prince of Wales” and many other visits, including to our magnificent training establishments, most recently RAF Cranwell. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe.

As the Prime Minister reminded us today so movingly:

“Tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive, tragically killing them all. Sergeant Nigel Coupe was 33, Corporal Jake Hartley was 20, Private Anthony Frampton was 20, Private Daniel Wade was 20, Private Daniel Wilford was 21, and Private Christopher Kershaw was just 19, a teenager. Tomorrow also marks the 18th anniversary of the death of Benjamin Reddy, a 22 year-old serving with 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Helmand Province in 2007. These men fought and died for their country—our country. Across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. I know that the whole House will join with me in remembering them and all those who serve our country”.


As a number of your Lordships will know at first hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. It provides immense pride, satisfaction and career prospects, and the chance to see the world. However, there are also undoubtedly challenges to service life. The recent harrowing inquiry into the death of Gunner Beck in 2021 highlighted a tragedy that should never have happened. Our thoughts remain with Gunner Beck’s loved ones at this difficult time. The Army has accepted the failings identified by the service inquiry and responded to the recommendations to improve service life across its culture, policies and practices. We have made it clear that there is no place for any abuse or unacceptable behaviours within the military. There have been other such awful reports, with consequent recommendations and actions. The Government are determined to do all we can to make defence a safe and welcoming career for all.

The Government also acknowledge the current crisis in recruitment, retention and morale in our Armed Forces, at a time of increasing global instability and heightened tensions. Only 40% of our forces personnel report being satisfied with service life and 62% report the impact on families and on personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave. That is why the Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and why it matters that this Bill represents the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can raise issues about how their life as a relative of a member of the Armed Forces impacts their welfare.

Looking at the continuous attitude surveys, we see that this is where the crisis we face in recruitment and retention is. It is for this reason that we have chosen not to include veterans within the scope of the commissioner. Veterans face a very different set of issues and require specific support, whereas the commissioner is being established to have a laser-sharp focus on the welfare of serving personnel and their families.

The Bill before the House marks a major shift in the approach to our serving personnel. It establishes, for the first time, a genuinely independent champion to hear first-hand from our Armed Forces, including our Reserve Forces, and their families. Through the commissioner’s investigative powers and their ability to report to Parliament, they will shine a light on the welfare issues that most impact our service personnel and their families and, crucially, what the MoD needs to do to address these. As is right in a democracy, elected Ministers ultimately must make the decisions, but the commissioner will make it harder for them to claim ignorance and avoid scrutiny. The commissioner will be a strong independent voice, holding both this and future Governments to account and, we believe, driving meaningful change across defence.

The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years. I pay tribute to her as a brilliant example of how to champion armed forces personnel through her work, including investigations, defence site visits and her reports and recommendations laid before the German Bundestag. Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life.

I know from my discussions with several noble Lords that there is an appetite to understand the types of issues that the commissioner may investigate. The definition in the Bill of “general service welfare matters” is deliberately broad, to allow the commissioner to gather evidence and make an independent decision on the issues that are most important to our service personnel and their families. By way of illustrative examples, we anticipate that general welfare matters should include issues such as service accommodation, mental health, education, unacceptable behaviour, provision of services, and the adequacy of personal kit. Conversely, issues such as the overall defence budget or strategic operational and commercial decisions would not be considered to fall within the commissioner’s remit. I also reassure noble Lords that our Reserve Forces will have the same access as our Regular Forces to the commissioner and will be able to raise any welfare issues connected to service life, both at home and when deployed.

As several noble Lords noted when we met last week, the Bill also contains some exclusions which prevent the commissioner investigating certain matters. As well as a power for the Secretary of State to limit investigations on the basis of national security and personal safety, it is also important that the commissioner does not cut across ongoing processes connected to specific cases, such as criminal proceedings and service inquiries, so as not to influence or undermine the outcome. Naturally, individual cases or inquiry topics can be indicative of wider problems the commissioner may wish to look into for thematic reports. For example, the commissioner would need to avoid investigating a specific case of sexual harassment while criminal investigations or a service inquiry were ongoing. However, that would not preclude them from investigating wider patterns of inappropriate sexual behaviour across the service.

The Bill also provides the commissioner with powers to access personnel information and defence sites, reaching thousands of our Armed Forces wherever they are serving. This will allow them to hear directly from service personnel and family members. To facilitate their investigations, they will have the power to demand access to information and service premises and, in the UK, to make visits unannounced, ensuring that the commissioner gains first-hand insight into the realities of service life.

We have given careful consideration to how the commissioner’s role will interact with the often very sensitive issues defence covers. National security is of paramount importance, and we have endeavoured to take a balanced approach. I refer to the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the commissioner’s access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason, and their ability to redact reports on national security grounds. Our officials continue to work closely with partners across government to ensure that the commissioner’s ability to access sites without notice is appropriately balanced with security considerations.

The Bill provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, safeguarding the established independent oversight of the service complaints system. I take this opportunity to thank Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, for the outstanding work she and her team have done to increase the efficiency and strengthen the independence, impartiality and integrity of the service complaints system.

In Committee in the other place, Mariette Hughes explained that her remit is too narrow and does not allow her to explore the root causes behind the complaints she oversees. The new powers of the commissioner will do just that, situating the Service Complaints Ombudsman system in a wider landscape of service welfare, and providing that coherent, independent view of those issues facing our serving personnel and their families. An implementation team has been established to ensure a smooth transition of any live complaints from the existing ombudsman to the commissioner’s office and to enable an effective set-up of the office and a full public appointments process.

The Bill also provides the commissioner with powers to report to Parliament. These reports will shine a light on issues facing personnel and their families and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to take on individual concerns from service personnel and their families, and build on these to launch wide-ranging thematic investigations.

While we do not wish to be too prescriptive, we anticipate that the commissioner will produce two different types of report. The first, an annual report, will cover the breadth of the commissioner’s functions. This would include the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the service complaints system, the commissioner’s functions exercised in that year, and any further matters that the commissioner deems appropriate. The second will be in-depth reports, including recommendations, following the commissioner’s investigations into thematic general service welfare matters. These reports must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State within 30 sitting days of receiving them.

Ensuring that this post is truly independent is of the utmost importance, not only to build the trust and confidence of the Armed Forces but ultimately to guarantee its success. As such, there are several safeguards in place within the Bill.

Notwithstanding the important national security and safety measures I have already covered, the new powers in the Bill have been created to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct these inquiries separately from government. These include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate; their ability to access information and enter defence sites, without notice in some circumstances; an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner; and the ability to report their findings to Parliament. Any redactions to reports will be limited to issues infringing on national security and personal safety. This takes us back to the purpose of the Bill: to establish a powerful independent voice to hold this Government and any future Governments to account, to ensure we can effect real change for our serving personnel and to fix the recruitment and retention crisis facing us today.

The Government are taking this landmark step of establishing a truly independent Armed Forces commissioner precisely because we must renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. The Armed Forces commissioner is a major step in commencing that important work. We owe our serving personnel and their families a commissioner with a single mission: to improve service life.

I look forward to what I know will be a rigorous and constructive debate in Committee and on Report, which many in both Houses and outside will follow. I am also particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Carberry. I am very grateful to noble Lords across the House for their ongoing support and interest in the Bill. I beg to move.

18:53

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I first place on record my admiration for and appreciation of our Armed Forces personnel. They are great. They make incredible sacrifices to keep us safe, as the Minister so eloquently and poignantly described, as do their families, and they deserve our unqualified gratitude and support.

His Majesty’s Opposition will adopt the same approach to the Bill as our colleagues in the other place. We want to be a critical friend. The Bill is well intended; we respect that it is a government manifesto commitment, and we shall support it. But for the sake of our Armed Forces, we owe it to them to ensure that the new position created by the Bill—an Armed Forces commissioner—does what it says on the tin, and that everyone is quite clear what the tin looks like. Our scrutiny will be diligent but, I hope, constructive. We have to be sure that the abolition of one structure and the creation of another creates neither gaps nor unintended consequences. I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in engaging with me and my noble friend Lord Minto on the Bill.

I will start with a couple of process observations. Clauses 1 and 2 establish the job spec of the Armed Forces commissioner. As the Minister articulated, these are important functions: the general welfare of service personnel and their family members, and improving the public’s understanding of the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families. Clause 1 also contains a wide suite of extensive powers. Clause 2 abolishes the role of the previous Service Complaints Ombudsman, so the new Armed Forces commissioner is taking on a very big job.

There needs to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of the initial appointment of the commissioner. Interestingly, the German model on which this is based is a parliamentary model, and that has not been totally replicated by the provisions of the Bill. I am not quite sure why that is, but perhaps the Minister can offer clarification in his wind-up.

As the Minister said, the commissioner is very free standing and deliberately independent, as far as possible, of the Ministry of Defence. For these reasons, the Defence Select Committee in the other place should offer an advisory opinion to the Secretary of State for Defence on the suitability of the candidate prior to any formal appointment.

The Bill makes explicitly clear that the individual will be neither from the Armed Forces nor a civil servant, so two obvious areas of expertise are excluded. That is fine in principle, but there needs to be total transparency about the chosen candidate, their qualifications to do the job, their relevant experience and of course their security suitability. Similarly, the commissioner’s accountability to Parliament needs to be more explicit, but that is something we can explore further as the Bill proceeds.

One broad but important issue that I have identified as emerging from the Bill, which I have shared with the Minister, is quite simply the proper balance of power between the Secretary of State for Defence and the commissioner. While the commissioner must be independent, the MoD is one of the most sensitive departments in government, and proper and responsible regard must be had to the delicate security issues surrounding defence premises, widely defined under the Bill. These could include nuclear facilities, Porton Down or premises that are the subject of operational activity.

I should like to see the commissioner’s deference to the Secretary of State on issues of security and safety more fully spelled out. There is recognition of this but, for example, if I understand the Bill correctly, if the commissioner proposes to exercise these powerful provisions for entry to premises, notice must be given to the Secretary of State within a period determined by the commissioner, and if the premises are in the United Kingdom, the commissioner is not required to give any notice at all if the commissioner considers that it would defeat the object of exercising the power. While the Bill quite rightly says that the Secretary of State can prevent or restrict the exercise of that power on grounds of national security or safety, that is a little challenging when they may not have received any notice from the commissioner that entry to premises is happening.

Would it not be more sensible to turn this around and to require the commissioner to give a minimum notice period of seven days to the Secretary of State of intended access to premises, unless the commissioner considers that there are extraordinary issues of potential loss of evidence or usage of currently unsafe premises, when the notice requirement would be suspended? In the latter case, the commissioner should be required to give the Secretary of State an explanation in writing for proceeding without notice. The advantage of that approach is that it would minimise compromise of national security and safety and avoid potential direct confrontation between the commissioner and the chain of command. The Secretary of State would at least have knowledge of any intended access.

The Bill will achieve an amalgam of what the Service Complaints Ombudsman used to do. I too pay tribute to Mariette Hughes and thank her for her unstinting hard work. That is a big block of work that will now land with the new commissioner, in addition to the new duties of general service welfare, as previously described.

There needs to be a clear separation of what the Armed Forces commissioner is reporting on in his annual report. There are two separate sets of distinct responsibilities here; we need to achieve clarity as to how they are being addressed under the new arrangements. That leads on to a question about resource. I am sure the Minister will be able to reassure the House that proper thought has given regard to that. However, from looking at the ombudsman’s annual report for 2023, we see that the current workload is hefty. We are talking about a significant volume of work falling on this new commissioner.

I will move on to the issue of drafting. I am smiling as I see former chair of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is in her place. I became aware under her wise stewardship, as a member of that committee, just how important the drafting of legislation is, and how we should not inhibit those who have a responsibility—such as the noble Baroness’s former committee—from pointing out where they think there are issues.

This legislation achieves effect by changing another Act. That means it is quite difficult to get the whole picture from looking at the Bill; you have to do a bit of detective work behind the scenes. We have to live with that and I realise why that has been adopted as a modus operandi, but there is reliance on secondary legislation. I have shared with the Minister that that is quite extensive. As he is aware, there are various provisions in the Bill that provide for subordinate legislation, such as new Section 365AA(2)(b) and (5), and new Section 340IA(4)(e) and (8).

I hope the Minister, with his Bill team, can look at this and seriously consider whether we can put more information in the Bill. For example, the functions of the commissioner are the functions, so why can we not just define them and leave it at that? The Bill seeks to specify what the Armed Forces commissioner cannot investigate. Fine; if that is it, that is it. Equally, the Bill seeks to specify “family members”. Surely the Bill can be much clearer about who they are. I would have thought immediate family members within the circle—perhaps those residing with Armed Forces personnel—would likely be included, and I do not think it is meant to be a wider family connection, but I would not have thought it was beyond the skill of drafting to try to be more explicit about that.

The noble Lord is well placed to set a good example in drafting. He is a model Minister in every respect, and I know he will not disappoint me on this front either. I look forward to hearing his thoughts on whether we can make a better fist of trying to make the Bill a little more explicit.

In conclusion, we cannot anticipate what issues of general welfare may arise that the commissioner will feel obliged to investigate, but the tragic case of Jaysley Beck, to which the Minister referred, and her death, so recently reported on by the coroner, was deeply troubling. Our thoughts and sympathies are with her family. I am aware that far-reaching changes have been made in the MoD since Jaysley’s death in December 2021. The chain of command no longer investigates complaints, there is zero tolerance of unacceptable sexual behaviours —an instructor found to have engaged in such behaviour will be immediately dismissed—and where criminal activity has taken place there is now the Defence Serious Crime Unit and a victim support unit. However, Jaysley’s case demonstrated that she did not feel able to complain in the first place through fear of what that would mean for her career.

No matter how effective other processes and procedures are, the only way to address that fundamental fear is to have some type of anonymous whistleblower system. If the Minister is sympathetic to that, that function could sit well in the new Armed Forces commissioner’s office. I do not know whether we need statute law to establish it; it may be within the executive authority of the Secretary of State for Defence to do it now. I offer the proposal as a serious suggestion, and I welcome the Minister’s comments in his winding-up speech. Like him, I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry. Finally, I look forward to the debate on this Bill. These Benches wish it well, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

19:04

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I support this Bill and that I am very grateful to the Minister for the consultations that he has already held regarding the background to and purpose of the legislation. At this point, I have just a few concerns on which I should welcome his further clarification.

The first concern is with regard to an issue which he himself has raised: the extent to which the Bill’s proposals will lead to real change for our Armed Forces. Take accommodation as an example. I should be very surprised if a commissioner did not see the need to look into this aspect of service life. Numerous attitude surveys have made clear over a number of years how the poor standard of housing, particularly for single people, has affected morale and, in turn, retention. I have seen for myself some of the failings in this area and the desperate measures to which some local commanders have been driven.

Having said as much, it is patently clear that we do not need an Armed Forces commissioner to tell us about the problem. But despite us being all too aware of the issue, the problem remains. It is, of course, essentially a matter of funding. If a future commissioner were to produce a report on this matter and it had as little effect on the ground as we have seen so far, people might begin to wonder what the point was. If this legislation is to be successful, it is essential that the circle be closed—that identification leads to rectification. I know the Minister shares this view, but I wonder how the MoD intends to give effect to his good intentions. Perhaps he can enlighten us—if not today then as the Bill continues its passage through the House.

The second point is the method by which people will engage with the commissioner. We have had a Service Complaints Ombudsman for some time, but one of the key drivers of the Bill has been the ombudsman’s criticism of the complaints procedure. This is part substance and part perception. I do not believe that the chain of command is quite as protectionist as some claim. I accept that there might be a closing of the ranks in a few cases, but commanders are in general anxious to ensure the welfare of their people. There is, however, a sense that those same commanders sometimes act as judges in their own causes. This gives rise to a perception of unfairness, and it can make subordinates feel that complaining will damage their career prospects, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, observed.

These are good reasons for introducing a system that has a much greater degree of independence, but people will need to be convinced that the degree of independence is sufficient to protect them from what they might see as the risks of complaining. I know that some have suggested that the commissioner’s independence would be compromised from the outset, since he or she would be appointed by, dismissible by and report to the Secretary of State. I do not share that view, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say what thought is being given to the way complainants will gain entry to the system. In the other place, the Minister responding for the Government said that it would be for the commissioner to decide how people access them. That seems rather vague. Surely some consideration has been given to an issue that will be central to the success of the proposed arrangements.

My final point is on the potentially vexed issue of access. As we have heard, the Bill gives the commissioner power to view premises, observe activities, inspect and copy documents, inspect equipment, take measurements and photographs, and so on. These are very wide-ranging powers. The Bill goes on to say that, in exercising them, the commissioner should give notice to the Secretary of State, but only within such a period as the commissioner deems reasonable and not if they consider that the giving of such notice would defeat the purpose of the investigation. As the Minister noted, the Bill does indeed say:

“The Secretary of State may prevent or restrict the Commissioner’s exercise”


of their powers

“in the interests of national security”,

but the Secretary of State will not always have the necessary details—not in time, at any rate—to exercise such a veto effectively. Within the military, many premises and documents are, and much equipment is, highly classified, and access to them is very limited, even among currently serving personnel. It is inconceivable that a commissioner should be able to override such restrictions.

When I was a station commander, a very long time ago, the Secretary of State would not have had a clue which parts of my command were sensitive and which were not. What would have happened had a commissioner descended on me at short notice and then demanded access to such an area? As proposed, I would have had no power to deny them. I realise that this will not be an issue in very many cases—including the example of accommodation that I cited earlier—but thematic issues may well be raised to the commissioner that concern working environments, and here security may well become a serious concern.

I understand the need to prevent people using security as a shield against investigation. On the other hand, security is one of the fundamental principles of war, and we neglect it at our peril. Some might argue that we could leave this up to the good sense of the commissioner. I do not suggest for one moment that the commissioner would lack good sense, but I simply cannot accept that such an issue can be left to chance. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the Bill itself needs to address this more effectively.

Let me stress that I make these comments with the intent of improving, rather than undermining, the very welcome Bill, which has my strong support, and I know that the Minister will view them in that light. I look forward to working with him on these issues as the legislation goes forward.

19:11

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. I saw it as a very positive step that the Labour Party pledged in its 2024 general election manifesto to establish an independent Armed Forces commissioner to improve service life.

I declare an interest as the father of a soldier. While my own son is enjoying his Army career and gaining much from it, previous speeches in your Lordships’ House and in the other place have cited record lows in morale and a crisis in recruitment and retention as driving this need for a strong, independent voice to represent the needs of service personnel and their families. So I see it as a very positive step forward that the Bill will enable any personnel or their families to raise a service welfare matter with the proposed commissioner, wherever in the world that matter may have taken place.

Service personnel and their families give much to this nation, as has already been said in your Lordships’ House. Much of that is unseen and can impact on extended family members, who often give unstinting support to loved ones during deployments and at other times. Personnel and their families never know what is around the corner or what might be expected of them, as we know all too well at present.

One restriction of the present system with the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman is that families of personnel are currently unable to submit a complaint. I am therefore pleased to see, in the Explanatory Notes, that His Majesty’s Government are speaking of the commissioner as a new, direct and independent contact point for serving personnel and their families, all outside the chain of command, to raise issues that impact them. The new commissioner, rightly, needs to champion our Armed Forces and, for the first time, to be a champion for Armed Forces families.

I am interested to discover how the role of the commissioner will be different from that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman as far as families are concerned, especially where there may well be a culture of not wishing to report or to raise concerns as it might impact negatively on a career, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

What will be key is that the Bill results in a culture change, whereby reporting or raising concerns becomes recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and the continuous improvement of the welfare and well-being of personnel. As the Royal British Legion has said:

“Absolute clarity is required from the outset of this new role, so that the remit is fully understood by Armed Forces personnel and their families, and expectations are set at the correct level”.


I welcome that the Minister has already spoken about independence, and I very much align with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on that independent role. I will also be looking, in the person specification for this new role, for someone who has good experience and is well-qualified in handling disputes and working around mediation. The commissioner must be resourced sufficiently to be reactive and responsive. The commissioner also needs to work with compassion; it is from compassion that things will change on the ground. That will involve the commissioner working alongside a number of others, including not only those within the chain of command but welfare groups and chaplains.

I will offer a brief comment on the invaluable work of Armed Forces chaplains, who are embedded with their flock on deployment and often live alongside them, perhaps with their families on the naval base, at the Army camp or at the Air Force station. A week last Monday, I had the immense privilege of spending the third anniversary of the terrible invasion of Ukraine with the chaplain of the Irish Guards, alongside Australian and Ukrainian chaplains, for a service with a significant number of Ukrainians, who were training in deepest Norfolk on a five-week course to prepare them to go back to Ukraine. It was one of the most poignant and moving services that I have attended: Ukrainians and their allies together remembering the immense sacrifices that have already been made.

This is the bread-and-butter stuff of Armed Forces chaplains. They accompany an officer who has bad news for a family. They listen to a young recruit working out if this career is for them. They quietly let the commanding officer know that the person she is about to see has something going on in their private life. They sit consoling personnel who have just lost a comrade and need to go back on patrol. They anoint the injured and pray for the dead. They ensure that families have someone to turn to when the clay beneath their feet begins to wobble. On this Ash Wednesday, Christian chaplains will be marking the beginning of Lent. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that the work of chaplains, of all faiths, is a crucial investment in the well-being of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and their families.

I have three questions. First, how does he expect the proposed commissioner to work with chaplains as part of their brief? Secondly, how does he expect the proposed commissioner to align their work with the UK Armed Forces Families Strategy 2022 to 2032? Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the Bill does not give an exact definition of family members, so what does the Minister think about that? For example, might it be appropriate to include the bereaved siblings of service members? Overall, though, I support and thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill.

19:18

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is the honour of my life to be standing here this evening, and I still cannot believe that I am here. Speaking for the first time in your Lordships’ House is nerve-racking, but it has been made less so by the warm welcome and advice I have received from noble Lords and Baronesses across the House—I thank them all. I thank your Lordships for all the kindness and patience shown to me. I am particularly grateful for the generosity and support I have received from my supporters, my noble friends Lady Prosser and Lord Monks, and my mentor, my noble friend Lady Drake.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Barber on his excellent maiden speech last week, and thank him for his friendship and encouragement over many years. On the subject of thanks, I hope the staff of this House know that their fame goes before them. Their professionalism, helpfulness and sheer niceness are legendary, and my experience of them has exceeded all expectations. I thank all of them. It would be quite wrong to single out any individual, but my four year-old grandson would not forgive me if I did not mention “the nice man with the big golden necklace” who gave him a private tour of the Robing Room on the day of my introduction.

I am very grateful to be able to speak in this debate this evening. My father was a soldier. In his late teens, he was rescued by the British Army from a future with very limited opportunities in Dublin. He left school at 14, started out as an Army cook and ended up with the offer of a commission. His experience gave him a lifelong love for, and gratitude to, this country, sentiments he passed on to his six children, along with regular reminders to stay true to our roots, always work hard, respect the flag—and drink Guinness. Other drinks are available, but your Lordships, I hope, get the general idea.

My Army parents would have warmly welcomed this new Armed Forces commissioner, and so do I. I was a military child in another era. I lived with the rewards and drawbacks of life in a service family, but it is not so different today. Armed services families deal with unique stresses: postings, deployments, separations, and disrupted children’s education. I myself went to 10 schools. In some ways, it is worse now: at least we did not have to put up with substandard housing. This Bill will give personnel and their families a powerful champion who can respond to concerns, investigate systemic problems and make recommendations that will lead to action.

I spent my working life in the trade union movement. I saw the unsung, day-to-day co-operation between union officers and employers to make workplaces fairer and more productive. This unglamourous work improves working conditions, heads off problems, solves problems as they arise and gives union members independent representation. These advantages are not open to Armed Forces personnel. That is why I am so keen to see serving men and women have an independent authority with real power who can look after their interests and speak up for them.

My noble friend the Minister talked about the crisis in morale, recruitment and retention. It is indeed alarming that only four in 10 regular personnel are satisfied with their service life. In most years over the last quarter of a century, more people left than joined the regular forces. As my noble friend has reminded us, the main reason people leave the forces is the impact on family and personal life. The commissioner’s work can help make service life more attractive, but the commissioner alone cannot carry the full weight of personnel challenges. For example, I would suggest that we do not need any more reports or inquiries telling us that servicewomen are not getting the basic protections they deserve—to put it mildly. I welcome the Minister’s remarks about this in his introduction, and the comments on the same subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

Our forces are under-capacity. Our country is vulnerable, and we cannot feel confident about our ability to respond effectively to threats. Modernisation and technology can mitigate reduced personnel numbers, but not entirely. These are matters for the strategic defence review and the Government’s broader defence strategy.

Seventy-seven years ago, the great trade union leader, wartime Minister and post-war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, said this in the other place: “We must build up our own strength and our own Armed Forces so that we can play our full part in the defence of democracy.” Who would argue with that today? Bevin was speaking during the early Cold War, when western allies were establishing the architecture of international law and the world order that today looks increasingly fragile. I commend our Government’s response to rapidly increasing global uncertainty. The Armed Forces commissioner is one part of that response.

In any debate about our Armed Forces, I readily defer to the expertise and experience of noble Lords and Baronesses, and of noble and gallant Lords across this House who have served in the forces. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them and thank them for their service to our country.

It has been a privilege to speak in this debate, and I look forward to many more opportunities to work with noble Lords and Baronesses from all Benches on many matters, and to contribute widely to the work of your Lordships’ House.

19:26

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is such a great honour and privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill and to be the first person in this Chamber to compliment her on her excellent maiden speech, which displayed such knowledge, based, as we know, on personal experience. As she herself has just told the House, she has had a long career in the trade union movement. She first became a teacher and was active in the NUT, and then she joined the TUC education department in 1978. Some 10 years later, she was appointed the first head of its equal rights department. In 2003, she was appointed to the post of assistant general secretary of the TUC and stayed in the TUC until she formally retired 10 years ago.

In her time as assistant general secretary, she served with distinction under the general secretaryships of my noble friend Lord Barber, who is, I am glad to say, in his place, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady. Of course, she served in the TUC at the same time as my noble friend Lord Monks. She was too modest in her speech to tell the House about the range of other appointments she has held. She was a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. She is a commissioner on the Low Pay Commission, a board member of Transport for London, a trustee of the People’s History Museum, a director of Trade Union Fund Managers, an alternate member of the Takeover Panel and an honorary fellow of St Hugh’s College Oxford.

My noble friend Lady Carberry has long been a model for, and advocate of, positive trade unionism that adds value to the person, the organisation and the country. She has, over the years, earned respect across the trade union movement, with employers and with Ministers of whatever kind, Labour and Conservative. She is a great believer in partnership and, I am sure, she will bring those values to bear to the business of this House for many years to come.

I am speaking in support of the Bill, but I do so with some trepidation. I am conscious of the fact that many of those taking part in the debate have had enormous experience of the Armed Forces, including those who served in office, whereas I myself have had none. It is true that my dad was an RAF pilot; he got his wings just before the war ended. His older brother, my uncle Michael, was a fighter pilot who was killed just after D-Day. His father, my grandfather—the original Viscount Stansgate—served in the Second World War as an air commodore and saw active service in his 60s. Before that, he served in the First World War, before the RAF was even founded, flying missions in various theatres. By comparison, I come to this subject completely afresh, although I hope to make a brief and worthwhile contribution.

Before I come to the Bill, I must declare an interest. My noble friend the Minister, in introducing his speech, declared an interest, and I have an interest to declare that I would not have been able to declare even one week ago. I hope the House will understand when I say how happy I am that the interest I have to declare is that, on Saturday—four days ago—my daughter Emily announced her engagement to Group Captain James Doyle, who is a serving officer in the Royal Air Force. As the House will understand, I suddenly find myself with a real interest in this Bill, and I see it in a new light.

My noble friend has set out the nature of the Bill and some of the reasons for it. All Members will have been aware over the years of incidents and situations that have occurred in the Armed Forces that have given rise to grave concern and which have needed to be investigated. The proposed commissioner for the Armed Forces and their families is important, because it will provide an independent and impartial advocate to address concerns for their well-being, to ensure accountability and to improve the overall well-being of service members and their loved ones. I have compiled a list of seven reasons why I think the role is crucial.

First, it will help protect rights and well-being. Service members and their families, as others here know better than I, may face challenges related to pay, housing—mentioned by the noble and gallant Lord already—healthcare, mental health support or unfair treatment. Secondly, I hope it will provide confidential and impartial support, because it is possible that many military personnel fear retaliation for speaking up. The new, direct ways of contacting the commissioner will, I hope, provide a safe, confidential way to report grievances without fear of negative consequences. Thirdly, it should ensure fair treatment, because the commissioner will now have a statutory authority, under the Bill, to investigate cases of discrimination, harassment or mistreatment.

Fourthly, it will bridge the gap between the military and their families. Families of service members, as we have heard from the noble Baroness in her maiden speech, face unique challenges, such as frequent relocations and deployments, and that alone can be very disruptive. Fifthly, it will hold the leadership accountable. The commissioner will help ensure that military institutions uphold high standards of ethics, fairness and accountability.

Sixthly—I think this is a key component of the Bill—it is surely the case that, when service members and their families have access to and confidence in a fair resolution of their concerns, it reduces stress, increases morale, and leads to a more effective and committed military force, making it more likely to ensure that we retain the service personnel that we need and in which we have invested so much in training. Finally, it will enhance public trust in the military. I hope that it will reassure both the military community and the general public that their concerns are taken seriously and addressed properly.

Until I prepared for this debate, I had not fully realised the extent to which morale in the Armed Forces has declined and remained low. I am grateful for the House of Lords Library briefing, which Members will have seen. It draws explicit attention to the fact that

“concerns have been raised about various aspects of service life, including morale, pay and living conditions as well as the impact of cultural and behavioural issues”.

Of course, this is a manifesto Bill, and it is good to see that it has a degree of cross-party support. It passed through the other place in a bipartisan spirit, and I hope the same will be true today. It is not always the case with manifesto Bills, as we saw in this House but two days ago.

In the time I have left, I want to raise a number of questions that I think need to be addressed. Although my noble friend may say that some of them can be safely left to the secondary legislation, I hope he will be able to shed some light on some of them.

First, I understand that the commissioner will not be a serving member of the Armed Forces, and that is sensible, but would it not be an advantage if she or he has had military experience? Will the commissioner have available to her or him an advisory board of people with military experience, and preferably of a younger generation, who might be more in tune with the purpose and spirit of the Bill? I have heard it said that the military covenant is not worth the paper it is written on without the resources to make it a reality. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that, were the allocated resources to run out, there is a government commitment to increase the commissioner’s budget in the light of proven need?

Next, what exactly will the definition of families be? Apart from those who are married—or, if I may say so, engaged—to serving Armed Forces personnel, will that include those in civil partnerships? Will it include, for example, for those who are unmarried or in informal relationships, the next of kin? Will it include parents? How will all the service personnel and their families be made aware of the new system, wherever they live in the world? Will families be able to contact the commissioner on behalf not only of a serving member of the Armed Forces but themselves? If so, that seems to me to be the biggest development that the Bill will bring about. Will the commissioner be able to consider complaints that have already been referred to the superseded ombudsman system? I think my noble friend indicated that that is probably the case.

The more I think about this Bill and the ideas and good intentions that lie behind it, the more I think that the key question is whether it will work and whether the moral compass of the Armed Forces will benefit by this change. Will the commissioner be able to convey the necessary authority to do the job? How is Parliament going to be able to know and ensure that progress is made? Does my noble friend agree that, if recruitment and retention rates can be shown to have improved, this might be a sign of success? Will the new system be embedded in the training of recruits, so that it is hardwired into the system, because it is also about building new levels of trust and, I suppose, esprit de corps?

My time is nearly up, so I will have to end here by saying this. I am not the only Member who is aware of the fact that this Bill has been brought in at a time when our Armed Forces are facing challenges that have not been faced for some time, and they will be deployed in areas and in ways that we have not seen for decades. I have always found the phrase “put in harm’s way” a rather quaint euphemism, but it is true that there is an awful lot of harm out there now. I very much hope that this Bill, if it achieves anything, can develop our Armed Forces as the effective military force that the country requires, and that we can play a part in improving morale and making our Armed Forces fit for the dangerous future that lies ahead.

19:36

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I offer my congratulations to Emily and James, and I look forward very much to the engagement party next month—it will be fun. Equally, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent maiden speech. I have to say that I was given exactly the same advice about drinking Guinness when I joined the Army—other drinks are available, and we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, in due course.

I start by declaring my interest as a humble reservist and head of the Army Reserve—I have been a proud reservist now for some 37 years now. Indeed, my early career was under the then Group Captain Stirrup at RAF Marham, filling holes in his runways. He is not here to hear that, but I certainly remember him, though he will not remember me.

I shall make three brief points, which I will expand on later. The first is that while the service complaints system has had a troubled birth, it has evolved into a pretty good system. As we lift and shift it into this new Bill, I hope that we resist tinkering with it and, perhaps, moving two steps backwards. Let us be very careful about that.

Secondly, I really welcome the aspects relating to the family. I am a firm believer that we recruit the soldier but we retain the family. I am slightly concerned that we raise expectations as to what the commissioner will be able to deliver. I do not want to overpromise and then underdeliver; at the end of the day, it is about money, and I fear not that we may lead people down the garden path but that, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, says, we do not have the money to correct the problems.

My third point is simply around a technical amendment when it comes to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, or not. We have made that mistake in the past with a previous Armed Forces Bill, and if I have time I will expand on that.

What has not been described fully is that, while the ombudsman has an important role in the service complaints system, the majority of the work is done by the single services themselves—and an awful lot of work goes on. There are hundreds of complaints each year, and that takes an awful lot of staff time. I will speak predominantly about the Army, because it is the service I know, and it has had to recruit 22 extra posts in recent years just to deal with this work, and very few cases actually get to the ombudsman. I worked closely with one of the earlier ombudsmen, Nicola Williams, when I was Veterans Minister, and I know that we have made progress. However, we judge the success of the system through three tests: is it efficient, is it effective, and is it fair?

The Army has done a lot of work in the last two years. Is it efficient? On the target of 90% of service complaints being dealt with within 24 weeks, for years we were stagnating at around 44%. When the next results come out, we will be up to 70%, so progress is being made. However, I emphasise how much work this takes to deliver. Is it effective? Well, how do you judge effectiveness? While 45% of career management complaints have been upheld, 40% of bullying, harassment and discrimination complaints have been upheld— I will come back to that—and 54% of pay and pension complaints have been upheld. They are being upheld, so it looks like the system is becoming more effective.

I want to highlight the case of Major Milroy, an Army reservist who won an employment tribunal over differential pay compared with his regular counterparts and not being able to access a pension until 2015 when the rules changed in 2005. My concern is not the case itself, because the MoD is seeking to repeal it, but that over 200 reservists felt obliged to make a service complaint on the back of that because they were concerned that if they did not, they would be timed out. It goes to the heart of sometimes poor communication from the Ministry of Defence about what is required and what is not.

Finally, is the process fair? The number of appeals is down, which implies that there is greater fairness, but we still have concerns over bullying, harassment and discrimination. Data suggests that a higher proportion of complaints come from minority groups and women. Following the Wigston review in 2019, with 36 recommendations and, as the Minister highlighted, the tragic case of Gunner Beck in 2021, with the coroner’s report just two weeks ago, clearly much more work needs to be done.

One of the concerns, as the HCDC report in 2021 on women in the forces said, is a lack of trust in the process—89% of women did not feel that they could make a service complaint, because it would not be taken seriously. I am pleased that some progress has been made. This is a significant change. Now, complaints within the Army do not go through the chain of command and the commanding officer—often, people did not want to complain to their commanding officer—and 80% of them go to the Army service complaints secretariat. That is a much better process, where people do not feel constrained by their chain of command. However, as ever, there is an unintended consequence—speedy resolution is now not as easy as it was, and in some cases that is exactly what people want. Also, the number of complaints is up, but partly because we have the My Complaint app and better publicity. That complaints are going up is not necessarily because the situation is worse but because people understand the system and are using it, so that is probably a good thing.

I am running out of time. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I want to say a word about accommodation. We know that accommodation is poor. We are prioritising service accommodation over training estate or the Army Reserve, but I worry that we will now have lots of complaints about accommodation which we already know about. Unless we are prepared to commit the money to sort it out, we will be raising expectations. It may be a radical thought, but the Bill’s provisions are due to come in in 2026 and the increase in defence spending in 2027. I do wonder whether we should delay for a year to make sure that we can meet expectations.

19:43

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on her maiden speech and look forward to her being involved, perhaps even in this topic as it goes through Committee.

I welcome the Bill, as I think everyone here does, and that the Minister gave a clear outline of all its details. We could not have a better Minister taking this through the House today. What I like about it is that, crucially, it is on a statutory basis. That is key to making it clear to service men and women that they will have someone there with real authority to initiate investigations into general service welfare matters. That will be crucial in raising morale. As we have all said, and the Government have admitted, our Armed Forces are badly demoralised. The right person in that job could really make a difference. I hope that the right person will be appointed to it.

I appreciate that the Bill went through the House of Commons unamended, with cross-party support, and it will of course do so here. However, we might want to look at some amendments, but all will be in the context of making the Bill better and stronger. It is a particularly important time to be debating this Bill given the pledge that the Prime Minister has made to send our troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and agreement as a peacekeeping force.

Many in the military have followed in the footsteps of their fathers and grandfathers, and mothers these days too. My concern is that the younger generation will not be so willing to join up when they see how their older relatives and retired military have been treated. That is why the link that the new commissioner has with veterans commissioners is crucial. It is vital that the job of veterans commissioner is also put on a statutory basis. In Northern Ireland, we lost an excellent veterans commissioner, Danny Kinahan, recently, because he found the lack of independence in his role not just frustrating but preventing help and support being given to veterans. The role is part-time, for two days a week, though Mr Kinahan spent far more time than that on the job. However, because of how the Office of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner is set up, it is not on a statutory footing and the commissioner does not have the independence to do the job without constant interference from the Northern Ireland Office. The two staff members report to the Northern Ireland Office, and not to the commissioner, which puts the staff in a difficult situation—wanting to co-operate with the commissioner, wanting to help to do something for veterans, but the Northern Ireland Office for other reasons wanting to stop it. The structural limitations imposed by the NIO have transformed the role of the commissioner into a figurehead.

I know that the Minister understands Northern Ireland very well and knows that a very large number of veterans live there. Despite the Belfast agreement and the changes that have come about, many of them still live in fear. We also should remember the various soldiers who have been killed at different times. Around 1,441 British military personnel died during the deployment in Northern Ireland. In one year alone, 1972, 130 British soldiers died. We must never forget their sacrifice to keep people safe in Northern Ireland.

The previous Government abolished the veterans’ support office, which helped to co-ordinate all the veteran support services in Northern Ireland, so I am afraid that a lot of veterans in Northern Ireland do not trust the MoD, having experienced decades of neglect and inertia in the provision of help. An independent body is essential, as the veterans welfare service and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs are now run by the MoD and are not independent.

Then we have section 75 of the Belfast agreement, which means that no one can be picked out above or before anyone else, so Northern Ireland veterans cannot be identified and are then, in effect, discriminated against compared with their former colleagues living in GB. A way has to be found of working around section 75 so that veterans can be identified, understood and supported properly.

I could talk quite a lot, but I will not, about the delays and problems within our health service in Northern Ireland, which affect veterans in acute need of physical and mental health support even more. Some of them have had to wait up to eight years for operations or critical care. I do not think that, across GB, their colleagues as veterans have to wait so long.

An inability to understand the difficulties arising from veterans in Northern Ireland not having suitable care means that we must look at this. Unless we have a veterans commissioner who can stand up with power and authority, we will never change that. Although this is going slightly wider than the details of this Bill, at Second Reading we can go wider, and this must be looked into.

Because the Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, we are moving back into a phase where we will see many more veterans, from incidents 30, 40 or 50 years ago, dragged through our courts. We saw the Clonoe decision recently—33 years on, some soldiers are likely, if the judge gets what he wants, to be prosecuted for something that they did on a dark night under huge pressure, doing what I think they were absolutely right to do, which was to shoot four people who had been out deliberately trying to kill civilians and police officers.

Those kinds of issues are why veterans are incensed about the recent legal judgment. They are incensed— I have to say it again—about the possible compensation payments to Gerry Adams. I hope the Minister will do his bit from the MoD side to ensure that that will never happen.

My message is this. While much in the Bill is good, please do not forget that, in looking at how we treat our military today, if we do not remember the service and dedication of those veterans who are now, in many cases, seemingly being abandoned, we will not get young people who feel that going into the armed services is worthwhile.

19:50

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, there can be no doubt that this is a very necessary measure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman, which has limited powers, has called for an effective and independent process, as have others.

The level of morale goes to the heart of the success of all the activities of the Armed Forces. There has tended to be a tradition of families joining up: my uncles, my brother and, more recently, two of my nephews served in the Army. There has also been a tradition of friends encouraging one another to embrace a career in the services. However, that becomes to some degree dependent on the overall quality of the experience of the Armed Forces by those serving today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, in her excellent maiden speech, focused on the low morale levels among those serving today. We know that morale has decreased for a third year in a row, with low morale reported as running at 58%, up from 42% in 2021.

On general welfare issues—I thank the Library for its help in this matter—we know that housing, maintenance, catering et cetera have levels of satisfaction lower than 30%. That would not be accepted in the private sector and it should not be accepted for those who serve in our Armed Forces.

Regrettably, we have to place those statistics within the wider context of satisfaction with processes dealing with conduct complaints and the appalling reality of some of the reports of criminality, particularly physical and sexual abuse. The suicides, departures from service, and the traumatised and ruined lives which are the product of bullying and harassment of all kinds, are all part of this picture. As the Government have observed, there is a very clear correlation between these matters and difficulties in recruiting and retaining personnel.

The functions of this commission are limited. The general function of promoting the welfare of persons subject to service law and improving the public’s understanding of these matters could result in an enhanced experience for serving personnel. Thematic examination of matter such as the incidence of violence and harassment, the circumstances that enable such behaviour, the adequacy of the protections currently provided, the nature of equipment provided to officers and the suitability of housing can be very helpful.

As Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, we agreed a process by which, if an officer received three complaints, this was treated as a management issue in addition to dealing with the complaints. Such management intervention can result in the identification of groups of officers who serving singly do not get into trouble, but who serving in a particular group fall into behaviour that is totally unacceptable. It can also identify health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, alcohol and substance abuse, which can result in behaviour that would not normally occur.

One thematic report on the use of force by the police in Northern Ireland resulted in a dramatic decrease in the incidence of force used. Among the contributing causal factors were inappropriate and unavailable equipment, and lack of management. The results, when the recommendations were implemented, were a dramatic decrease in the number of incidents of use of force, a decrease in the number of claims made against the police for assaults, a decrease in the number of claims made by officers for injuries on duty and a decrease in the level of sickness among officers. Thematic research can undoubtedly be very valuable in identifying issues which materially affect welfare.

I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in relation to the requirement in subsection (3) of the new Section 340IB inserted by Clause 4 to notify the Secretary of State in advance of any occasion on which the commissioner proposes to enter Armed Force premises, subject to the limitations. Perception is enormously important, and I hope that the Minister will find a better way to take care of national security and protection of life issues in the Bill.

The exclusion of particular service complaints matters that were or are the subject of service inquiry, criminal investigation et cetera, very clearly limits the functions of the commissioner. The creation of this office may generate an expectation that the commissioner will be enabled to deal with individual service complaints. However, the commissioner will be at the periphery of the proceedings, able to adjudicate on whether a service complaint should have been admitted and to review a decision by the Defence Council that an appeal cannot be proceeded for various reasons. Once a matter has been determined by the Defence Council or its appointed panel, the commissioner will have only ombudsman powers to review the process by which the complaint was determined in terms of delay and maladministration and the ability to refer a matter back for further consideration. No further powers are accorded on the commissioner in the Bill than those held by the ombudsman.

The role will be particularly challenging given the complexity of the delivery of Armed Forces activities across the world. Flexibility and creativity in delivering and devising systems and protocols for the operation of the office will be absolutely necessary, as will the co-operation of those in command with whom the commissioner engages in the exercise of his or her functions. There is a vast range of issues, as noble Lords have said.

The limitations on the powers of the commissioner must be spelled out, or rejected attempts to raise issues with the new commissioner will be damaging to the reputation which the commission will have to build. There should be no space for assumptions about the ability of the commissioner to understand the realities of life in the armed services or for preconceptions that the commissioner will be naive or lack understanding of service law. There should be no hostility, and no unwritten policy to wine, dine and welcome the commissioner but give them little more, but rather genuine acceptance that the new system will operate for the benefit of all, and hence for the benefit of the Armed Forces and the security of the country.

The greatest tool for generating trust by the new commissioner will be the communications that are enabled. It will be difficult, and the commissioner will need adequate resourcing to be able to meet face-to-face with personnel, to explain what they can do and the limits. The processes must be publicised and limited, so that officers and members of the Armed Forces can examine the integrity and effectiveness of the new system and decide whether they will use it or, in the most difficult of circumstances, walk away from the service altogether. Above all, if the Government really want to make this work, it will be necessary to enhance the powers of the Armed Forces commissioner.

19:58

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. It is legislation for which the Government have a direct mandate, meeting their manifesto commitment to introduce an independent Armed Forces commissioner to improve the well-being and conditions of service for those who serve in our Armed Forces, for whom I have the greatest respect.

I join the congratulations for the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent, well-informed and therefore wholly relevant speech. The noble Baroness delivered it in a strong voice, with just the right amount of self-deprecation, and delivered some humorous remarks very well, entertaining your Lordships too. The highest praise that I can give her is that, in seven minutes before your Lordships’ House, she has already established that she has the ear of everyone and that we are all waiting to hear her next and many more contributions. It was an excellent maiden speech.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister of State for the clarity of his opening speech. It was clear to us all when he was on the Front Bench in opposition that he would make an excellent Minister, and he has made an excellent Minister. He is well respected in all parts of your Lordships’ House, and part of the reason for that is his characteristic openness and willingness to consult all who have a contribution to make to the work of your Lordships’ House, and I thank him for that on behalf of those who have experienced it already in relation to this legislation.

I believe that this legislation does what it claims: to reform the existing system, the failures of which have been manifest for several years, by replacing it with something more proactive and able to take the initiative in tackling systemic injustices. This is about not merely improving welfare, critical though that is, but arresting the dissatisfaction that has contributed to a recruitment crisis in our services. Given today’s geopolitical context and the breadth of expertise and experience represented in today’s proceedings, your Lordships’ House needs no reminder from me about the importance of reversing the decline in the number and overall resilience of our Armed Forces. I believe that this legislation will, if properly implemented, make a real contribution to effecting a cultural change that will do exactly that.

Introducing this Bill in the other place, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary, in words echoed by my noble friend the Minister today, acknowledged the important precedent of the German armed forces commissioner in shaping this legislation and shared his hope that, as in Germany, a wide-ranging debate on the UK Armed Forces commissioner’s annual report would become

“a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each ... year”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 75.]

In preparing for today’s debate, I had occasion to examine both the remit of the German armed forces commissioner and her most recent annual reports. The latter are wide-ranging, searching and forensic, touching on matters including personnel retention and shortfalls, inadequacies in matériel and issues relating to procurement as well as issues more explicitly related to welfare, discrimination, equity and justice. I would be interested to know whether my noble friend the Minister anticipates that the reports of the UK Armed Forces commissioner will be of similar scope. After all, if the commissioner believes that, for instance, personnel shortfalls or ineffective procurement processes have impinged upon the general welfare of service personnel, would this be a matter that would properly lie within the commissioner’s jurisdiction? The German commissioner’s annual reports suggest it would be, but it would be helpful to know whether this is also something Ministers believe should lie within the remit of her UK equivalent.

As a corollary to that question, it may also be useful if my noble friend the Minister could share any thoughts or discussions he may have had relating to the profile of the candidate the Government have in mind for this post once the legislation receives Royal Assent. Schedule 1 dictates that the commissioner must not be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, but, in forming an idea of the scope of the commissioner’s duties, any further clarity as to the professional experience Ministers believe necessary adequately to perform the functions of this role would be helpful.

As we have heard, subsections (2) and (3) of the new section inserted by Clause 1 abolish the Service Complaints Ombudsman and replace it with the new Armed Forces commissioner. I do not propose to enumerate any of the terrible cases relating to service welfare we have seen emerge in recent years, but it is clear that the existing system has proved inadequate, to say the least, and that a more proactive and independent system is necessary. The principal issue with the Service Complaints Ombudsman has been that, in common with all ombudsmen, it has been able only to identify procedural issues, and then only reactively, rather than engage specific injustices and remedy them. Indeed, successive Service Complaints Ombudsmen have identified their inability to initiate investigations as an impediment to the successful exercise of their office.

I have now lost the order of my speech. I think I will probably have to conclude with this remark. Few things can be more important than improving the welfare—ah, I have found the page. On that point, I welcome the broadened powers conferred upon the Armed Forces commissioner to investigate specific concerns and wider thematic issues.

I turn now to a question that the Minister raised, which was developed succinctly by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is the real question, one that in a conversation that I had that the noble and gallant Lord was involved in was described as the “so what” question. It is: what follows from that investigation? When the commissioner identifies an injustice, what process is then set in train that remedies it? I ask this question in a supportive spirit because I know that the Government understand that a more effective diagnostic exercise is not all that is required and that for the welfare and contentment of our service personnel to be improved they must feel that the commissioner has the power not merely to investigate their welfare but to contribute to its improvement.

My stumbles mean that I am out of time. I will sit down.

20:05

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. Like many people, I do not have a military background, but I wish to declare that I am an honorary colonel of the Merseyside Army Cadets. I am really proud to be their champion. The young girls feel like family. That is why I wanted to take part. Also, as Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, the similarity of the role is why I want to speak today.

In fact, when I came back as Victims’ Commissioner in October 2023, I was delighted to see that as Victims’ Commissioner I was welcomed to the Ministry of Defence, a superb building I had never been in, so I look forward to attending the service committee board. I first met Judge Large via Teams. He was also delighted to welcome me back because he knows that I come from the human aspect of individuals and how they feel. In fact, after our last meeting, I can declare that I am going to visit a court martial to witness what goes on there, I am going to Catterick and to the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, and I am also going to see victims’ homes and victims’ support workers. I think it is very important, especially at this time, when the Ministry of Justice is looking at the criminal justice system, to put the systems together.

This is a timely and necessary step in ensuring that the welfare of our service personnel and their families is at the heart of defence policy. The establishment of the Armed Forces commissioner will provide a powerful, independent voice for those who serve and the families who support them. I know that by putting their voices at the heart of this role, there is nothing more rewarding for those seeking help and guidance about kit, food, education, homes and support for spouses in the workplace. I know we will see them feeling heard at last by having this commissioner.

Expectations have been discussed about the new commissioner’s role, so I appreciate that they will be high, but if the commissioner is like me, they will like a good challenge, and I have pushed many doors. When I started as Victims’ Commissioner, it was done on the back of a cigarette packet. Now I have more staff, but not enough. Now I have more funding, but not enough, and there are still doors to be pushed. So I say that, whoever that candidate is, they will be a strong advocate, they will be capable of challenging the system and they will earn the trust and support of the Armed Forces. What criteria will the Government use to appoint the commissioner? How will the role differ from, as we have heard from previous speakers, that of the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman?

For me, families play a crucial role in our Armed Forces. Indeed, they are the backbone of military communities and help those who are in need. They are central to this Bill. That is in Clause 4. Like many speakers in this debate, I would like a better definition of “family member” because I have the same arguments about who is involved within the criminal justice system. In fact, my late husband was the victim, and I am his family, so I get the connection and how we need to get this better. I ask my friend the Minister—I call him my friend because, as everybody says, he is really good across the House; I know there is etiquette, but there you go—whether he can give me a clearer definition of who will be included under the Bill. In particular, bereaved families go to my heart because when asking them to actually cope the mechanism that is in place has to be really strong for them, and so it deserves strong advocacy from the commissioner.

The commissioner must also be accessible. I am probably twittering because I have been up since 5.30 am doing media on my latest report on court backlogs, so I am boring myself with my own voice at the moment; I do apologise. It is really important that people can have accessibility. I am just a bit concerned, if it is only digital, about how that will encourage people to come forward. Also, there are those deployed abroad or those who have literacy challenges. We all go to digital, but we all want to throw the computer or phone out of the window when it does not work. How will the Government ensure that all personnel can engage with the commissioner’s office? Communication is really poor for victims of the criminal justice system and I know it creates a barrier. It is an unnecessary barrier for the families to feel, yet again, that they are blocked.

A lot of measures will be put in place. I heard other speakers go on about independence. Again, I can say that the Victims’ Commissioner is independent. Believe you me, when anybody announces me as the Government’s Victims’ Commissioner, I stand up there and say that I am certainly not. Independence is important, but it depends on how you interpret that word. That will come down to the advocate that the commissioner will be, given that the Secretary of State will appoint, fund and may dismiss the commissioner. If we can get the strength in that commissioner then we can absolutely look at the finer detail.

On resources—I love this one—commissioner’s proposed budget is £4.5 million to £5.5 million annually. I know that this is based on the German armed forces commissioner, who has 60 parliamentary staff. I know the Minister cannot say exactly but I would like to know how much resource the Armed Forces commissioner will have in place. If that person needs more staff, will the Government give them the resources? I have been there. It is a really good debate to have.

The most important thing to say is that I am really concerned about the culture of our Armed Forces, especially the messaging that we are seeing. I also send my respect to the family of Jaysley Beck—a really beautiful soul, taken unnecessarily so early in life. I want to see what support the commissioner can give to help the personnel feel that they can seek help. This is an area where everybody is resilient and tough, and is trained to know better, but we need to look at what resilience means. It is a virtue that enables people to move through hardship towards better outcomes. Sadly, no one escapes pain, fear and suffering. Nevertheless, from pain you can have wisdom, from pain and fear you can get courage, and from suffering you can gain strength. I only know that as I stand here today. More importantly, we need to break down these barriers. I wish this role every success and look forward to having more clarification as the Bill progresses.

20:12

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We all owe a great debt to the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve us so valiantly in our Armed Forces, at home and in combat abroad. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we will never forget their efforts and, in many cases, their sacrifice during the height of the Troubles. It is a historical fact that, were it not for the Armed Forces and security personnel, there would never have been a peace process in Northern Ireland and we would not have the relative peace that we enjoy today.

For that reason, I welcome the Bill put forward by His Majesty’s Government to give greater support to service personnel and their families. It is important to state that there should be no impediment that would block the personnel from being treated fairly and equitably in all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad. It is right and just that the proposed legislation will treat Northern Ireland service personnel in exactly the same way as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We have heard tonight that morale has been falling for far too long, as recent satisfaction polls clearly show. We have heard that, due to poor work/life balance, unsuitable housing, harassment and bullying, it is proving difficult to recruit and retain personnel. I therefore welcome the appointment of a truly independent commissioner who will not be drawn from the ranks of the military or Civil Service and, being statutory, will be able to ensure that the rights of all service personnel will be totally upheld.

I am glad to see that families are at the heart of the Bill, as it is often the spouses who provide the much-needed support at home. They often have to make sacrifices to keep their families together. It is thus important that the families have the same access to make complaints. Can the Minister confirm that bereaved relatives will also be granted the same access?

It is also pleasing to note that reservists will have the same rights under this Bill. The reserve programme in Northern Ireland is immensely popular, with twice as many people per head of population volunteering for the Reserve Forces as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I declare that I have a family member who currently serves in the Reserve Forces.

I hope that the proposed budget of around £5 million will prove adequate to allow the implementation of the important safeguards enshrined in this Bill. As time proceeds and personnel become more familiar with the scheme, it will be necessary for that budget to be increased.

I would not wish to complete my speech without referring to the rights of those who have bravely served our country and are now veterans. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, at present there is no provision in the Bill which would grant the veterans’ commissioners similar statutory powers to the Armed Forces commissioner. Will the Minister agree that veterans deserve similar protection to that granted to serving members of the forces?

Finally, I will raise another important issue relating to veterans’ rights in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, all the local authorities have quite rightly signed up to the Armed Forces covenant, which protects veterans’ rights relating to the provision of public and commercial services. Unfortunately and disappointingly, in Northern Ireland only five of the 11 local councils have chosen fully to adopt the covenant. It was extremely disappointing that in February’s meeting of Belfast City Council the Armed Forces covenant was rejected because of a nationalist bloc. Surely, as the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, stated, the covenant is not about advantage, it is simply to prevent disadvantage.

I welcome the Bill as I am sure it will ensure that the rights of serving personnel and veterans throughout this country and abroad will be fully protected.

20:17

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry. That was a truly impressive speech. It brings something to this House to have someone from a family that is so closely associated with the military because it allows us to understand some of the pressures that they are under—not least that she went to 10 schools. I went to two and still objected to having to move to the other one. I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I was chair of Annington Homes until its sale to the MoD in January; I currently chair the successor business.

About two years ago, I attended a meeting arranged by the then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, who is now the Secretary of State of Defence, at which the German armed forces commissioner was present. I was very impressed. We could see that there was a commitment not just to the military personnel but to their families, who make huge sacrifices on our behalf. There was a recognition that the families, the mental health of the defence forces and the appointment of an independent champion for serving personnel and their families was a huge step forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, explained that fully in her very good speech.

In some of the interaction I have had with the MoD over the years it was very difficult to articulate the need to look after families, especially if the forces person was deployed abroad. There were often many quirks in the set-up, particularly around housing, that defied common sense.

When the Married Quarters Estate was sold in 1996, the MoD retained the maintenance of the homes for some purpose I have never really found out. Overall, the state of maintenance is deplorable. I have seen houses with kitchens that were fitted 50 years ago and some poor souls still trying to use them. If I ever come across Michael Portillo, I will ask him why he did not give the responsibility for maintenance to Annington or some other organisation. Then I will ask him where I should go on my holidays. From day one it has always intrigued me. The homes were an Annington asset and, as such, the commercial imperative would be to keep them in good condition.

One day, I saw at first hand the problems caused by a lack of maintenance. A young mother stopped me as I wandered round a site on my own, taking pictures of houses. She came out and said, “Are you something to do with the houses?” I said, “Well, sort of”. She said, “I have been trying to get somebody to come and look at the bedroom of my 18 month-old child because there is black mould on the walls”. Her husband had had to raise the issue with his commanding officer. A month had passed and nothing had happened. That can cause the death of a child because it is extremely dangerous. That is engraved on my memory. She wanted me to come and see the room. I could not bear to see it because I knew that what she was saying was true. If there was someone else outside the command structure who could expose the danger that family was in, it would have been very useful. As I heard the German commissioner speak, that family was in my mind.

I was born and brought up in a council house. I went on to represent the constituency it was in some years later. It was about 80% social housing. That social housing was well maintained and mostly very attractive. Why could the military bases not be like that? Was it money or organisation? Years later I became a diplomat in Australia, where I saw military houses regularly. They were very attractive and beautifully maintained. In Australia, they revere their military personnel. As we look at the troubled state of the world, will that help us look after the military personnel even better? I think the Armed Forces commissioner could bring about a fundamental shift in the care of the military and their families.

There is another issue. Together with the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Bruce, I was appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, to the Mull of Kintyre Review, under the chairmanship of the Scottish judge, Lord Philip. All three of us were privy counsellors. The helicopter crash on the Mull, on 2 June 1994, was the worst loss of life for the RAF in peacetime. A Chinook helicopter had been refurbished and reconfigured and delivered to the RAF base two days beforehand, on 31 May 1994. No voice recorder or accident data recorder had been fitted. There was anxiety among the aircraft’s pilots and ground crew about familiarity with the reconfigured helicopter before the accident happened. The pilots lost their lives that day and 25 major security staff from Northern Ireland also lost their lives.

Long story short, the pilots were blamed. Air marshals claimed that the pilots were “negligent to a gross degree”, based on no evidence whatever. A fatal accident inquiry was held in Paisley, with 38 civilian and military witnesses. The sheriff concluded that he could not determine the cause of the accident but could not agree with the determination of gross negligence by the military personnel. Later, we were told that the air marshals downgraded the evidence from the air accident team. In that context, I thought of the Armed Forced commissioner. It is vital that, when something as awful as that happens, there is independent and impartial oversight of the MoD. The nature of the person appointed will be very significant. Rigorous, strong and able to see the impact of decisions on the welfare of all MoD personnel and someone with the gumption to fight their corner—that is what the new commissioner can do, and I applaud it.

20:25

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his introduction to the Bill. I offer further broad Green support for the general direction of the Bill and the creation of an Armed Forces commissioner.

Since I have a large range of portfolios to cover, I will draw a couple of parallels with other areas, where we have seen similar positions created or proposed. It is worth looking at the parallels for those comparisons. The first of these was just a few days ago, in Committee on the Mental Health Bill, when an amendment was tabled—and will return on Report—to create a mental health commissioner; that is, a champion for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, shares what is being said here with his health colleagues.

In that debate, I drew a parallel with an already existing position, which has been highly successful—the Patient Safety Commissioner—which was fought for and won by Baroness Cumberlege, who has now retired from your Lordships’ House, sadly. The Patient Safety Commissioner has been really important as a champion for vulnerable people. As the powerful maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, outlined, all military personnel are vulnerable, being in the chain of the command and denied those union rights that we guarantee—one way or another—to most other workers. All military personnel are vulnerable.

When we think about who the commissioner is, we need to focus on the fact that some members of our Armed Forces are more vulnerable than others, particularly by reason of age or gender. A number of noble Lords, including the Minister, have focused on the tragic case of Gunner Jaysley-Louise Beck. I point the Minister to something I said in the Moses Room in the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules debate. I had just been at a meeting where a representative of female personnel serving in the military said that where they are at now is going back to the attitudes of 2015, particularly in the treatment of female victims of abusers. I contrast that with the Army’s statement after the inquest into the tragic death of Gunner Jaysley-Louise Beck, which said that there had been

“significant changes in the Army, including the introduction of clear and unequivocal policies to state that there will be zero tolerance to unacceptable sexual behaviours”.

I welcome that statement from the Army, but it does not reflect what I have heard from serving personnel and people who speak to and represent them now.

At this point, I feel that I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the importance of independent oversight of this appointment. I am not sure whether the Select Committee is the right procedure, but we definitely need that because this person will have such an important role. The noble Baroness commented about an anonymous whistleblower scheme, which we should also potentially look into because we know that sexual predators are often serial abusers and serial predators. It may be that their first, second or third victim does not feel, for whatever reason, that they can come forward. People may witness disturbing behaviour and it might be difficult to know whether to report that. An anonymous whistleblower scheme would potentially help some very vulnerable people in our military.

It probably will not surprise the Minister that the second group of vulnerable people I am going to focus on are the young people, particularly the under-18s, in our military. The Minister knows well my views on this, but the public may not have as much awareness as they need to of the fact that, for example, in 2021-22—to pick one year—23% of British recruits signed up before their 18th birthday. It was 30% if you take just the Army. Think about who the commissioner is going to have to serve; they will have to serve a significant number of children. That will have to be thought about when we consider who that commissioner is.

It is also worth focusing on the fact that the UK military focuses its recruitment on areas of socioeconomic deprivation, and those recruited as minors are disproportionately enlisted from those deprived areas. I point to some really interesting and disturbing work done by Jonathan Parry from LSE and Christina Easton from Warwick University, looking at some of the issues that arise from socioeconomic disadvantage. It can have negative effects on decision-making and inform a mental bandwidth tax, which affects cognition and control. Perhaps we should think clearly about the ability to access a post such as a commissioner. Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with educational and informational disadvantage. Three-quarters of junior recruits assessed in 2015 had a reading age of 11 or below, with some having a reading age of five. We need a commissioner who is able to help people in that situation.

I want to make one final, broader reflection. Many speakers have referred to the state of geopolitics. We have of course seen a great deal of talk about increasing the size of the military, and ensuring that we have a strong commissioner is relevant for this. The people talking about increasing the size of the military really need to look at the demographics, because they will see that by 2040 the population of 18 year-olds will be 10% smaller than it is now. Some figures on health published in the International Journal of Epidemiology showed that 25% of children born in England in 2003-04 had a chronic health condition by the time they reached the age of 16. It is crucial that we are able to look after the vulnerable people in our military, so we need the right person as a commissioner.

20:33

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. The reason that I am standing here talking is partly thanks to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was the person who suggested that I should immediately go and take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme when I sent him an email about it. For the last two years, I have had the privilege of graduating in the Army scheme and then the Navy scheme. Just over a year ago, I was with the Royal Marines in the Arctic, which is extremely relevant and useful training for the temperature in the Chamber this evening.

The second reason is because of the late and much-lamented Baroness Massey of Darwen. The Minister may remember, because he was speaking for the Opposition, a Bill when we talked about the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. I suspect that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was referring to. The Army Foundation College is a good example of an issue that is systemic and thematic; some of the recent cases, over the last 10 years, are pretty harrowing. They have continued for a long time and will continue into the future until and unless someone such as the new Armed Forces commissioner grabs hold of it and does something about it.

The German model that we are following is a good one, but it has been around for a long time. For reasons that I think we can all understand, it was set up in 1959 in the wake of the devastation created by the German armed forces and the need to completely rebuild them from the bottom up. By contrast, today we are talking about the third iteration of us trying to find something similar to what the Germans have. We started this only in 2008, so we are rather late to the party. I think we are playing catch-up. The evidence is in the key recommendations of the German armed forces commissioner in her last report. The areas that she focused on were personnel shortages and operational readiness; ageing equipment; recruitment and retention; bureaucratic challenges; and mental health and welfare.

Those areas are an interesting contrast with the last report of our current commissioner, because the German ones were to some extent looking at the problems of today, but in looking at issues such as personnel shortages, operational readiness and ageing equipment, they were actually looking to the future. Look, by contrast, at what the last commissioner here said in 2022: it was about the system. It was about efficiency and fairness, resolution time, system improvements and performance metrics. Lastly, it was about bullying, harassment and discrimination.

A lot of the effort of the current commissioner has been simply to get the system working because it is not working. The Germans have a system—as one might expect—that does work, but they have about 70 years on us in terms of getting it going. We need to effect change quickly.

In visiting the Army and the Navy in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, one is very impressed, and almost overwhelmed, by the range of regimental silver, flags, plaques and paintings. I have never had so many photos taken of me in my life. There is an understandable fierce pride in the past, but I sometimes wonder whether the pride in the past and the retelling of the great stories of the past in some ways stop us thinking as much as we should about the future. That is a cultural issue which the Armed Forces need to deal with.

I have a series of questions for the Minister which I do not expect him to be able to answer, brilliant though he is. First, because we are in catch-up mode—other noble Lords referred to this—will the funding and the staffing be adequate for the scale of the task, given how much the current commissioner is focusing on getting the system working, let alone dealing with the complaints coming in? The Germans have 60 staff, the current commissioner here has 26. We may initially, for a two- or three-year period, need significantly more than that simply to get traction and to get the basics right.

Leadership is key. I know the commissioner cannot be a regular, a reserve or a civil servant. If you look at the example of the German commissioner, she is a lawyer, and she was for 11 years a Bundestag deputy—a very senior one. When she was appointed, immediately after she stepped down from being a deputy, elected by a large majority of the Bundestag, she was able to hit the ground running. She has strong relationships and knowledge within the parliament, which have been enormously helpful. I hope that will be taken into account when thought is given to the type of person we are looking for: we need somebody who really knows what they are doing.

The Armed Forces, like many an institution with more history than is good for it, can be quite defensive culturally—for completely understandable reasons. Might it be possible, or even necessary, for the commissioner to have ex-members of the Armed Forces as his or her staff, or even that one could appoint people on secondment into the office, denoting that you are high potential, that you are going places, and that spending a period in the commissioner’s office is a big plus and is an important part of your development?

Next, given the issues around bullying, harassment, discrimination, violence against women and girls, and mental health, it is unreasonable to expect that the commissioner will have the right level of expertise and experience to deal with these issues in-house. We mentioned this and discussed this in the very helpful briefing the Minister gave last week. I appeal to the Ministry of Defence to think about the commissioner developing relationships with a variety of organisations that have this expertise, so that they can access it very quickly as and when they need it, rather than thinking when something comes up, “Oh, where do I go for help?”

Lastly, on the issue of entry to premises, it is crystal clear that the German armed forces commissioner has carte blanche to go wherever in the world she wishes with no advance notice whatever being given to the armed forces; such is the level of trust, that works. Could we not do the same here?

20:40

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, the Armed Forces do a remarkable job keeping the people of this United Kingdom safe and secure in an ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for their courage and their devotion to duty. The sacrifices of our Armed Forces at home and abroad must never be forgotten.

I congratulate the Minister on the way he has presented the Bill to the House. I hope that this legislation will improve the lives of our Armed Forces personnel. I hope the Armed Forces commissioner will be an important advocate for service personnel and their families. Regrettably, too often, promises made have not matched the reality experienced by our service communities. Many service personnel and their families have felt forgotten and very much neglected.

The Bill’s main provisions will be to establish an independent Armed Forces commissioner with wide-ranging powers to carry out their role independently from government. I welcome that the Armed Forces commissioner will be on a statutory basis reporting directly to Parliament.

I want to touch on an issue that was briefly touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. Across the United Kingdom, there are around 2.5 million veterans. It is vital that they are not simply left behind. Our veterans should enjoy our strongest possible support, as should serving members of our Armed Forces. I ask the Minister: if we are making provisions on a statutory basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, why are we not making the same statutory provisions for veterans’ commissioners across this United Kingdom, giving them the power to carry out their role independently from government?

We are to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving members of the Armed Forces, so why can it not be the same for veterans? If that happened, it would be a huge step forward for the Government in how they value our veterans community; it would give them the equality of treatment they very much deserve. Without the bravery and long-lasting commitment of our security personnel, the reign of terror in Northern Ireland would have led to the deaths of many more innocent victims. In Northern Ireland we possibly have more veterans than in any other part of this United Kingdom, with many thousands who served in the Armed Forces.

I welcome the recent appointment of the new Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, and I wish him well in his new role. He is also somebody who has served in the Armed Forces with distinction. This is a part-time appointment, for two days a week with staff from the Northern Ireland Office. It is not possible for the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, on a part-time basis, to be responsible for looking after the interests of the thousands of veterans in Northern Ireland. If the Government are serious about looking after our veterans community, surely this should be a fully funded post with a full-time appointment, given the needs of our veterans in Northern Ireland.

The Bill will give independence to the Armed Forces commissioner, which I believe is vital. There is a case to be made for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence from government. I can speak only for Northern Ireland. For example, the staff of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner needs the same independence in challenging and holding the Government to account without fear of oversight from the Northern Ireland Office.

If it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving personnel, why can the same case not be made by government for veterans? The creation of an Armed Forces commissioner is certainly a positive step forward for the Government, but surely they should do the same for our veterans. All forces personnel and veterans across these islands should be able to avail equally of the same quality of service. We must work together to provide the services and protections that our Armed Forces and services personnel need, now and in the future.

I repeat that it is not possible for our veterans commissioner to service all the needs of our veterans in Northern Ireland, and to do the job that he needs to do. He needs independence from government, especially from the Northern Ireland Office, to do what he needs to do.

20:47

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on her maiden speech. I look forward to many more contributions.

I have been involved in welfare and redress for Armed Forces personnel for over 20 years. I was a member of the House of Commons Defence Committee and a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. I think I have also sat on every single Armed Forces Bill over the last 20 years. It is worth reading the conclusion from a House of Commons Defence Committee report, Duty of Care, from 2005. The 20th anniversary of it was Monday this week. It says:

“We … recommend that an independent military complaints commission be established. It would have the authority and capability to make recommendations which would be binding on the Armed Forces. It would also have a research capacity that would enable it to examine trends that it had identified … It would be for the commission itself to decide whether to undertake an investigation, but we would expect it to take into account the seriousness of the allegation. The commission should have the authority to consider past cases … The primary goal of the commission would be to resolve complaints made to it. If the commission decided to pursue a complaint, it would have the right of access to all documentation, and to Service personnel, in order to enable it to establish whether the correct procedures had been followed and whether there were matters that required criminal investigation … The commission should be required to make an annual report to Parliament … We recommend that the commission be established in such a way as to assure both complainants and the public of its independence from the Armed Forces. We believe that the commission would help MoD identify lessons that need to be learned. We also believe that a truly independent scrutiny mechanism would contribute to bolstering public confidence in the Services”.


One could argue that it has taken us only 20 years to get to that point. In its response to that report, the Government noted that recommendation. They were forced to bring in the independent complaints commissioner following the Blake report into the Deepcut incidents in 2006. It was quite clear from very early on that Susan Atkins, the first commissioner, did not have the powers or abilities to make real change. Then, under the 2015 Act—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, might have been involved in that—we got the Armed Forces ombudsman, which did have powers to investigate but, again, did not have the real power to make the real change that was needed.

It is worth looking at another House of Commons Select Committee report from 2019—one that I was not involved in—entitled Fairness Without Fear: The Work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. It gives a litany of failures for that organisation, not because of a lack of dedication on the part of the staff but because of cuts in staff, the negative attitude that still existed towards the institution and the delay in implementing recommendations. That has been quite clear as, over the past few years, the slow drum beat of scandals has not really gone down. We had the issues around the Wigston report, which was referred to earlier. In 2019 we had another excellent report—I served on that committee—on women in the Armed Forces. The way in which women were still being treated was absolutely appalling. We have had the issue around the Red Arrows, and we have had women being abused in the Submarine Service—it has been constant. Have we failed over the past 20 years? Yes, we have.

This is possibly an opportunity to change that, but I think we are hanging a lot on this Bill. We might think that, somehow, by changing the name and changing it slightly, things will improve—I am not sure that they will. I think the Minister should take on board some changes. For example, I am concerned about the length of the commissioner’s term. The Bill says that he or she will be there for five years, and the term could be extended for possibly another two years. I want to probe why that has come about. I know that one of the past ombudsmen made a suggestion about the length of the term, but if you are to have somebody build up the knowledge, this is important.

Another thing is the independence of the commissioner, because they will have to rely on finance from the MoD. I would like a mechanism set up whereby this body is not under the remit of the MoD if it is to be completely independent. Time and again, we have seen organisations having to fight for resources—we heard that about the Victims’ Commissioner, for example. There are models we could set up whereby it falls outside the MoD and the budget is not in danger of being raided.

We also need a mechanism by which the recommendations are implemented. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, it is great to identify them, but these reports need to lead to reaction.

I warn my noble friend that I am minded to put down some amendments that I think are needed to strengthen the Bill. The intentions are good but, if we are to emulate the German model, which I have studied previously, I am not sure that just changing the title and changing what we have will actually do that. I welcome the Bill, but there is a lot more work to be done on it yet.

20:54

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on her excellent maiden speech. We are obviously very fortunate to have her in your Lordships’ House. I shall not detain noble Lords very long in this refrigerator of a Chamber.

I thank the Minister for his excellent introductory remarks and for the briefing he undertook last week at the MoD. At that briefing, I asked him a question regarding reservists and the extent to which, and when, reservists will fall within the commissioner’s new remit. I tried to make the point that the moment of deployment for reservists is not as clear cut as it is for regulars, given their particular domestic circumstances and their relationships with their employers. The definition of their deployment date cannot always be readily ascertained. Thus, their particular general service welfare matters and, subsequently, service law may need to be viewed from a slightly different perspective.

I was delighted to hear that the Minister’s son-in-law is a reservist; he indicated last week that, as a result, he had an inkling as to the point I was trying to make. I had the impression that, as a consequence, he might have said something in the introduction to this debate that would clarify the situation regarding reservists: he did indeed use an all-encompassing expression which included the word “reservists”, but really no more than that. I may have got this wrong but as I looked through the Bill I could find neither reference to the point I was making nor even the word “reservist”.

I hesitate to talk too much about reserves, given that in front of me is my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who knows much more about reserves than I ever will, but he, unbeknownst to me, encapsulated part of the worry I have by referencing both a pensions issue and a pay issue in the past. I find myself thinking that there may be an overview problem associated with the Bill and reservists in particular. I wonder whether there is a means whereby the Minister might agree to get together with me, my noble friend Lord Lancaster and anybody else who has a particular reservist interest to see whether we can do the equivalent of stress-testing certain circumstances whereby reservists might find themselves having the Bill applied to them slightly differently from regulars, and see whether that might be a worthwhile starting point.

20:57

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a long and interesting debate. This is the only contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence if I appear to go back to the start of the debate to express these Benches’ support for, thanks to and tribute to His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As a country, we owe the Armed Forces a considerable debt of gratitude; that is something that we do not say sufficiently often, including to the public. It is very important that this debate is happening now, in the context of the geopolitical challenges that we face on a daily basis.

The Bill may play a small part in thinking about the welfare of and recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, is right that we need to be very clear that we should not put too much emphasis on one Bill to rectify many of the issues associated with the Armed Forces, but this manifesto commitment from the Government is a welcome one and the Liberal Democrats, in the other place and here, welcome the Bill and wish it well. We inevitably have some questions and will raise some issues this evening and table some amendments in Committee.

The Bill is obviously intended to promote the welfare of service personnel and their family members, which is very welcome. That is important, and clearly goes beyond the scope of the current ombudsman, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about. How much further does it go from the existing role? In theory, it would appear to be helpful by going beyond service complaints to a wider remit for service personnel and their families to bring cases. However, like other noble Lords, I will press the Minister on how the Government envisage defining a family, because it can be understood in a variety of ways. In particular, there are questions about kinship carers and the families of deceased members. Here, there is a slight gap in the legislation as it is currently proposed. The Minister was very clear that it is about current service personnel, but if somebody has been killed in action, would their relevant family members be able to have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner under the envisaged proposals or would there be a separate arrangement for them? It would be helpful to understand that a little bit more.

Like other noble Lords, I will raise the question of commissioner’s independence, but also the independence of the appointments process. How do His Majesty’s Government envisage engaging in the recruitment of the commissioner? Will it be an open call? I assume they are not going to recruit Capita to engage in the recruitment of the commissioner, but how else might they do it? Was the noble Lord, Lord Russell, thinking, since the German commissioner is a former MP, that perhaps a former Member of your Lordships’ House might be able to put themselves forward to be a commissioner, if the hereditary Peers Bill passes unamended?

It would be helpful to understand this. The legislation says that the commissioner will not be a civil servant or current service personnel, but it does not say that it cannot be a retired civil servant or former service personnel. The Minister is nodding. If the commissioner is a retired general, say, what provisions can be put in place to ensure that serving personnel would not feel inhibited about bringing cases? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, talked about having provisions for whistleblowing. If the independent commissioner had a services background they would inevitably have connections to the services. In many ways that would be very useful as they would understand the cases that are brought to them, but a very junior member of the Armed Forces might feel inhibited about bringing a case. It is important to understand how independent the commissioner will be.

That also relates to the commissioner’s budget. The figure of £4.5 million to £5 million has been talked about. How fixed is that figure? How great is the commissioner’s scope to put forward proposals to say, “This isn’t going to enough for the role that I have been asked to undertake”?

There is also a question of scope. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, talked about two very different types of cases: the very broad issue of accommodation—I will come back to that in a moment—and the very specific case of the RAF fatalities. Would something like that be within the commissioner’s scope, or would they not be able to look at it because, presumably, there would be formal inquiry? It would be useful to know how far there will be clear lines of demarcation between legal investigations and what the commissioner might do.

Finally, on Armed Forces accommodation, if we are concerned about the welfare of our Armed Forces and retention, then, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, retention is about families. Having brought the homes back into public ownership, will His Majesty’s Government invest in ensuring that the homes and their maintenance are fit for purpose, so that one key aspect of welfare will not take up the majority of the commissioner’s time? It is surely important that the Government make it clear that they are going to deal with the accommodation issue. While we are about it, might the Government think about committing to the decent homes standard for Armed Forces accommodation? If it is right for renters in civilian life, we should surely demand at least as much for our Armed Forces personnel and their families.

Finally, is there any scope for looking at frivolous and vexatious cases? Clearly, we want the commissioner to be able to look at important, relevant cases, but just occasionally, cases might be put forward that are frivolous and vexatious. Will there be some screening process to make sure that the commissioner is able to focus on meaningful cases and not get caught up with anything that might be unnecessarily bureaucratic?

We wish this Bill well. We will perhaps bring forward a few amendments in Committee, but we look forward to the Minister’s response.

21:06

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent maiden speech, particularly her relevance to the subject and her background as coming from an Army family.

I also reiterate the statement from my noble friend Lady Goldie that we on these Benches will approach the Bill as critical friends. We have heard many excellent speeches from around the House, and I am sure that the Minister, as is his custom, will pay particular attention to the concerns that have been expressed—which are guarded concerns, because, in general, the whole House supports the Bill.

All noble Lords wish to see the highest standards of welfare for our Armed Forces personnel. We owe them a constant debt of gratitude, and the least that we as parliamentarians can do is to ensure that they are treated with the respect they deserve. As has been noted by many noble Lords, including by my noble friend Lady Newlove, morale in the Armed Forces is not where we would like it to be. More must be done to make certain that their legitimate concerns are effectively addressed.

If implemented correctly, the new commissioner should pave the way for greater oversight and transparency. However, as we have heard, success depends on the detail. My noble friend Lady Goldie has eloquently and clearly set out the Opposition’s position on the Bill. I will not dwell on the points that she has made, so as not to detain the House much longer, but there are three issues I would like to focus on.

The commissioner, as noble Lords have highlighted, will need independence, resources and power. As was mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks, independence from the Ministry of Defence is crucial. Effective oversight of the service complaints system and service welfare matters occurs only if there is no intervention from vested interests. However, this does not mean that the commissioner should be entirely independent from Parliament. Just as the commissioner will hold the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces to account, Parliament must be able to hold the commissioner to account. As drafted, there is no scope for this in the Bill. It is an important omission given that, as other noble Lords have said, the policy is founded on the example of the German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Despite this, the commissioner we are presented with in the Bill is noticeably different from the German commissioner.

The German parliamentary commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, and nominations are made by the defence committee and parliamentary groups. The candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast is then duly elected and appointed by the president of the Bundestag. The remit of the German commissioner is established in Article 45b of Germany’s Basic Law, which states:

“A Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces shall be appointed to safeguard basic rights and”—


as an auxiliary organ to the Bundestag—

“to assist … in exercising parliamentary control”.

To do that, the commissioner may take action based on their own initiative and discretion, or at the direction of the Bundestag or the defence committee.

The German parliamentary commissioner is therefore entirely independent of the armed forces but also ensures that the German parliament exercises a high degree of oversight, guaranteeing the accountability of the armed forces. The German model has a greater degree of parliamentary involvement than the model presented in the Bill. It would not be unique to make this commissioner closer to Parliament. There is precedent in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government have taken that decision and what the reasons are for not including a stronger role for Parliament.

My second point is on resource. We know that the commissioner will cost more than the current ombudsman. The Explanatory Notes mention an estimated cost of between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—compared to the current cost of approximately £1.8 million. Will that extra cost be funded by the Ministry of Defence, or will it come from a separate pot of funding? I can see that the Minister has noted my question and will deal with it in due course.

Thirdly, there are a number of vagueries in the Bill. Proposed new section 340IA states the commissioner will investigate “general service welfare matters”, but what that includes is not overly clear. If, when the Minister rises for his closing remarks, he could offer greater clarity on the type of issues that could be investigated, that could be of benefit to the whole House. As other noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned, it is also unclear what is meant by “relevant family members”. We know this will be left to secondary legislation. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 116.]


I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, but it does not appear that this draft definition has yet been published by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell the House when this draft might appear? As we enter Committee, it would be useful to have some indication from the Government of their intentions.

By addressing the issues that have been raised by noble Lords today, one hopes that implementation will be efficient and effective. As the Bill progresses, the Opposition will continue in the constructive manner that has been outlined today. We will not shy away from challenging the Government when necessary, as is the duty of the Opposition, and we will push for clarifications and changes that we believe are needed to ensure that our forces receive the treatment they deserve. Their sacrifices are an example to us all and we owe them nothing less than our best.

21:13

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions, for the general welcome and support from across the Chamber for the Bill’s intention of establishing the Armed Forces commissioner, and for the very constructive comments, and indeed challenge, to the Government on how we might improve the way in which the commissioner will work. On behalf of the Government, I am very grateful for that. However, it would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Carberry on her outstanding maiden speech. I hope that she will be able to show a recording of it to her four year-old grandson; I suspect that he is probably in bed by now—who knows?—but it was great.

I also say to my noble friend, without trying to upset her, that her father—who was a soldier, as she referred to—would be immensely proud to see his daughter in the Chamber here and to hear her give a speech like that. She said that he was an inspiration to her, and my noble friend was an inspiration to all of us in the Chamber who listened to her story. We look forward to her contributions in the future.

There are politicians who straddle party politics, and Ernie Bevin is one we all look to. My noble friend was quite right to remind us of the pivotal role he played, obviously as a Labour politician but also as a politician who straddled the party-political divide, and all of us who take a particular interest in national security and foreign policy matters look to him for inspiration. She was right to remind us of that. We are very grateful for her contribution and look forward to many more in the future.

Before turning to the individual contributions, I will address the most fundamental question in all of this. There are debates about what this and that should mean, but I will first pick out a point made by at least four noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Beamish, among others, asked: what difference will this make? That is the fundamental question. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there has been report after report into some of these matters, including sexism and racism.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked: what sorts of things will the commissioner look at? Included will be sexism, racism, misogyny, bullying and all the inappropriate behaviours that we could all list. My noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out that there have been many reports on these matters; the phrase he used was the “drumbeat” of reports that have taken place. There is not a single Member in this Chamber who does not abhor the things that we have read about.

The question is: how will the commissioner make a difference and bring about the change that we all want? That goes to the heart of the matter. As we develop the Bill, there will be arguments and debates about what this and that mean and about what should happen here and there, but the fundamental question, all the time, is: what difference will it make? As many have pointed out, I believe that placing something on a statutory basis, with an independent person choosing which reports they can undertake—with the status of the UK Parliament giving the individual that responsibility —offers us the best chance of ensuring that we can move forward with this. I believe that we can do that.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of independence. It is our intention for the commissioner to be stand-alone. That is why it is separated from the military; the commissioner cannot be a serving military person or a civil servant. We intend to create a separation of power and responsibility to try to ensure that we can deliver the objectives that we all want.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, very much for her remarks. The Defence Select Committee will be able to offer an opinion and can look at the individual, but it will not be able to say that this cannot happen or to block the decision in any way. The Defence Select Committee of our Parliament saying what it thinks about an individual will carry influence and weight in determining what should or should not happen. That is the correct way forward; it will allow the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State to take a view on that before making a decision.

The noble Baroness will note that we are ensuring that the successful candidate, whoever it is, will have to undertake developed vetting. She asked whether that would be the case: it will be the case, which is important.

A number of noble Lords raised national security. That is not determined in the Bill, but the Secretary of State will have the power, through secondary legislation, to make a list, if they should want to, of sites that they think the commissioner should be excluded from because of national security considerations. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked who would decide this. That would be based on advice from the military to the Secretary of State about which sites would perhaps be inappropriate, for national security reasons, for the commissioner to visit. There is an attempt, through secondary legislation, to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to protect national security sites from the commissioner, as indeed should be the case.

A number of noble Lords asked about family members. That will be in draft legislation and will be published before Committee. I shall try to ensure—because the boot has been on the other foot for me—that “before Committee” does not mean that, if the Committee starts at 2 pm, everybody gets the draft at one minute to two. I shall try to ensure that people get it with enough time to be able to look at it and assess it before the debates have happened.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the difference in Germany—and the noble Earl actually answered her question. The difference is that the German commissioner sits in the Bundestag. You could argue that taking the position out of that actually increases the independence and separation from the Government. You could look at it the other way and say that, if it is included in the Bundestag, that ensures that Parliament has more of a say. I would argue that, by taking it out of it, you increase the independence of the particular person who has that authority. That is the choice that you have to make.

A huge number of questions came up in the debate, some of which will have to be discussed in Committee. To confirm, the commissioner cannot make unannounced visits outside of the UK; they can make visits, but they cannot make any unannounced visits to sites outside of the UK.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, talked about the ability to take general thematic issues into account. That is the main difference. The existing Service Complaints Ombudsman has made the point that she has felt constrained by the fact that she could look at individual complaints but the ability to take a more general, thematic approach has been denied to her. She felt that that has been a very real problem.

I go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—just to show that I do listen, though this is more for Committee. She raised the issue of secondary legislation and referred to particular sections—I will read this to make sure that it is accurate. I can confirm to her that new Sections 365AA(2)(b) and 365AA(5) do not provide for support in secondary legislation. New Section 365AA2(b) does not create a power to set out further functions of the commissioner in subordinate legislation—that is, it is not a delegated power. It is wording that ensures that the commissioner’s functions are those that are set out in the Bill and could also include other functions conferred by other legislation, were that legislation to be in place. There are a couple of other examples of that which I will give to the noble Baroness in Committee, but I did not want her to think that I was ignoring her important question about secondary legislation.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the whole issue of cultural change and confidence, and building confidence in the new person is absolutely fundamental. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the role of forces chaplains, and I think we would all pay tribute to the work of forces chaplains; we know how important they are. Of course, we would expect the commissioner to work with forces chaplains in the development of their work but also in understanding the general service welfare issues. Forces chaplains will be an important source of evidence for that.

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the engagement of his daughter to a group captain. He again raised the important point about confidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised. There will be a comprehensive communications programme. He mentioned the importance of making sure that everybody was aware of the work of the commissioner. That is really important, and there will be significant work to ensure that that is taken forward. He asked about the authority of the commissioner. I go back to the point that I do not believe you can give much more authority to somebody than the British Parliament statutorily empowering an individual to take on such a role; I think that is really important.

A number of noble Lords mentioned resources. The current resource for the Service Complaints Ombudsman is £1.8 million, so this is potentially almost a tripling of the resources available to the new commissioner—a significant increase.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does with the reserves, and I am very happy to meet him.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I just want to add a bit of clarity to our conversation about regulars, veterans and reserves, and what we imagine reserves to be. As Major-General Lancaster, I am head of the part-time volunteer reserve and subject to military law when wearing a uniform. Where we get confused is with veterans. When a regular leaves service, they do not become a veteran; they join the regular reserve, have a reserve liability and can be called back—indeed, we need them to put divisions in the field—and subsequently join the recall reserve and still have a potential liability. We call that the strategic reserve, and I think the Bill covers that. What it does not cover and make clear is when a member of the strategic reserve could make a claim. Is it at any time or when they are subject to military law? That is what needs to be clarified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I understand it, it is when somebody is subject to service law. I think the way forward with this, without getting into detail, is that the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, mentioned the possibility of a meeting. Let us set up a meeting between us to go through some of this in detail prior to Committee, where we can take some of it forward. As I say, my understanding is that whether they are regulars or reserves, it is within scope if that individual is subject to service law. Let us take some of this forward in due course. I just say politely that the Bill does not mention the word regulars either, but they are included. Rather than talk about regulars or reserves, we went to individuals “subject to service law” as an all-encompassing phrase to help us. Let us take this meeting forward.

In answer to one specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster—let me read it out so I do not get it wrong—the Ministry of Defence does not agree with the judgment of the employment tribunal in the matter of Milroy, and an appeal has been lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord. He may have known that, but I did not. I hope it is helpful to him that it is on the record.

There are ongoing discussions regarding Gibraltar. When I was in the noble Baroness’s place, I always used to ask why Gibraltar was not within the scope of Bills. It is the normal legislative process, but discussions then take place with the Chief Minister in Gibraltar to see how we apply the appropriate legislation there, should they wish it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her remarks about the establishment of a commissioner. Her remarks about what we do with respect to the younger generation are important. She will know that veterans are not within the Bill’s scope. None the less, like the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay, she made important points about veterans. They have been put on the record. I will ensure that the points that she and the noble Lords made are sent on to the Northern Ireland Office so that it is are aware of them. That does not answer the specifics, and I am not pretending otherwise, but I have taken her points seriously and will ensure that they are passed on to the Northern Ireland Office.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her comments and the points that she made on the importance of the thematic reporting that is available to the commissioner. That is the whole point of it. Again, the commissioner’s ability to present their report to Parliament and for it to be discussed is particularly important.

I thank my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton for his comments; I am glad that he has recovered. He mentioned the need for a wide-ranging debate on the annual report. The importance of the candidate is crucial, and it will require a strong, determined individual. He is right to have pointed that out. I thank him for his support and his remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised the importance of families, which we all recognise. He is quite right to have pointed out that families will, for the first time, be given the ability to make a complaint to the commission and for that to be taken forward. I confirm that bereaved families are included in the scope of the Bill. That is really important. It was made clear in the Commons. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised that point.

I thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for her contribution and for highlighting the crucial importance of the person who is appointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised this point and the need for cultural change, which is at the heart of everything. There will be continuing debates but, as I have said to her in other debates, if the commissioner sees individual incidents and individual complaints as being indicative of a more general welfare problem then they can use them as individual examples to generate their desire, intention or decision to investigate something more generally.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for reminding me of the Armed Forces scheme and of our time together on that. He was right to raise those questions. Of course we need someone with experience. I think I am right in saying—if I am wrong I will correct this in Committee—that although the commissioner and the deputy commissioners cannot be current serving military or civil servants, there is nothing to prevent the people they decide to recruit having had that experience. It may be that someone who was serving but is now retired could be recruited. If I am wrong I will correct that.

Developing relationships with other organisations is, as the noble Lord mentioned, absolutely fundamental. Again, you would expect that as good practice.

We will debate in Committee the ability to enter premises and when that is appropriate and when it is not. We are trying to strike a balance between national security, the ability of the commissioner to go somewhere unannounced when they think that would be advantageous, and being fair to the operational activity in the base.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay, for his contribution and the points he made. My noble friend Lord Beamish’s massive experience is welcome and we will discuss his points further. We regard five years as an appropriate term of office, but I look forward to discussing that in more detail. The most important point he made, as I said, was about the slow drumbeat of reports. We have to get over that—that we just have report after report.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her contribution. We will define “a family” in regulations before Committee. Of course, accommodation is something that can and will be looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, we will take up the issue of reserves.

I think I have covered most of the points. I know I have not covered every single point. I thank the noble Earl for the points he made. The money does come from the MoD; it is MoD-funded. I have covered the points raised on general welfare matters.

In conclusion, we have had a really important discussion. I do not want whoever is in this position—whichever Government are in power—in five years’ time to have us discussing once again the establishment of some other structure, process or procedure to deal with the issues that confront us. It is unacceptable to continue to read about some of these things. We have to find a way of changing this and of making a difference. That is what the vast majority of those in the Armed Forces and those who run them want to achieve. We have to find a way to deal with this and for this Parliament to find a structure that really deals with it, so that we do not have further reports. With that, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

Commitment and Order of Consideration Motion

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 8, Title.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.38 pm.