Monday 24th March 2025
(2 days, 21 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeArmed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (20 Mar 2025)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this set of amendments, really to provide some balance, because I feel that we should hear both sides of the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in introducing these amendments, said that the commissioner should not be visiting without the Secretary of State being aware, and I entirely agree with that. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the person with political responsibility, who needs to know what is going on and whether the commissioner has identified a potential problem. However, not being aware is not the same as having seven days’ notice. There is a very large gap between those two things.
What we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord about the commanding officer having the right to deny access is, I am aware, not directly in line with these amendments. However, on day one in Committee we talked about how the ombudsman, as structured, has not worked and has not had sufficient powers. We have to be careful to make sure that we are not putting a commissioner in the same position here. We have to be realistic: there may be a systemic issue, such as those we talked about on the previous day in Committee, and a concern about the treatment of female service people. We might hope that a commander would always want that issue to be exposed and understood, but we cannot guarantee that, and it is really important that we do not disempower the commissioner with changes to this Bill before they are even created and put in place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, back to her place today; I know she was busy elsewhere in the House of Lords on our first day. It is welcome to see her here. Both she and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about the opportunity to discuss the points that have been made, and we can of course meet between Committee and Report to do so. I can promise the meeting, but I cannot promise the outcome. To be frank, as noble Lords will know, that is how we in this House conduct business, improve legislation and achieve the objective that we all want: the commissioner being effective and having the appropriate powers to do the task they undertake.
As noble Lords know, I like to make some general remarks before making formal points; I hope that is helpful to the Committee. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the balance between the powers of the Secretary of State and of the commissioner, and I will say something about that. We have tried very hard to balance those powers. I also hear the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the importance of national security. There may be elements of a particular base that one would expect the commissioner to be precluded from visiting for national security reasons, even if it is not the whole base; there is also the role of the commanding officer to consider.
On the question of intention, if we take the example of a normal decision of the commissioner to visit a base, the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord will see that there is a requirement in the Bill for the commissioner to notify the Secretary of State that they are visiting a particular base:
“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of the proposal within such period before exercising the power as the Commissioner considers appropriate”.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would require that that happen at least seven days before the commissioner intends to exercise the power. The expectation would be that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer that such a visit was to take place.
However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, under the Bill a confidential list will be drawn up saying where the Secretary of State believes it inappropriate for the commissioner to visit because of national security reasons. That will be shared with the commissioner, although it will remain confidential. But we will take up the point made by the noble and gallant Lord about how that will work with a base only a small part of which may be subject to national security concerns.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
The Minister said that, ordinarily, the commissioner will give notice to the Secretary of State. But equally—this comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—we know that, in order to be truly effective, in some circumstances the Armed Forces commissioner will need to give little or no notice. That is fine because that helps the effectiveness of the commissioner, but a commanding officer is then exposed to the possibility of the commissioner wanting access to a site to which he or she should not properly be allowed access, because of national security. So, in proposing that the commanding officer have a backstop ability to deny access, we are seeking to improve the power and authority of the commissioner, because that then reduces the need for undue notice on their behalf.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states:
“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”.
The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states:
“Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”—
this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made—
“if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”.
As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it.
I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful.
I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other.
Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it.
We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers.
In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time.
Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence.
However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance.
We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend.
I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage.
What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised.
I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into.
If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised?
I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I will speak briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
The German armed forces commissioner and her activities—on whose role, to a large degree, this new UK version is based—are covered by a country-wide whistleblowing Act, which was passed, I think, about three years ago. Looking at the example of Jaysley Beck, and trying to disentangle the long and unfortunate history of the way she was treated almost from the time she joined the Army Foundation College, would identify a whole series of points at which the whistle could have been blown in some way, shape or form but, for whatever reason, was not. This is not a case of a single occasion that was missed; there were multiple occasions involving a wide range of people, many of whom were old enough and senior enough to know better, and who, for whatever reason, did not take action.
There are elements of human behaviour and psychology at play, including the way in which an organisation—which has huge pride in its history—reacts when it sees that the way it likes the outside world to believe it behaves, and how it holds its values, is not in fact the case. It is not always straightforward to work out exactly how to deal with that and how to flag up what is going on without being seen to be disloyal and without, in some way, being seen to be disrupting the organisation. Even if you feel that some of the values being demonstrated by the actual behaviour are wrong, they are almost trumped by the other values that one feels are more important, which are probably those that are discussed. The values that have gone wrong are the ones that are not being discussed or flagged up. That seems to be a root cause of why people are not coming forward and not talking.
This is an important area. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is not the office that will look after this, who on earth will be? Who will defend the young girls like Jaysley Beck of the future—and, probably, of today? We need to get this right. I think that we would all welcome detailed discussions between now and Report, probably involving outside organisations that have been talking to some of the people who have suffered and who have not found ways of telling the chain of command or the outside world, in a way that was heard, what was going on. We really need to use the occasion of this Bill to try to get this right.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have.
Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable.
I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances.
The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do.
I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward.
There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour.
Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change.
As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service.
Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward.
The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information.
On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important.
It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that.
I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made.
As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best.
In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness very much. I did not have any written notes, so I shall do my best to continue seamlessly.
I think I was commenting on the way in which the public and Parliament know what the commissioner is doing, and there are a couple of elements in this amendment that are particularly relevant. The general point is that, if the commissioner is holding an inquiry on a particular subject, that may indeed take quite a significant period of time. There are issues that are being resolved that do not necessarily deserve a stand-alone report on a particular subject—but do we have a sense of what issues are being addressed and how the commissioner is working? In particular, we can look at proposed new Section 340OA(1)(c) in this amendment, on
“the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required”.
It is important that Parliament and the public have a sense that the commissioner has a vehicle by which they can say, “X number of extra issues have been raised with me, but I only have the resources to do this number of things”.
So it is useful at this stage perhaps to regard this as a probing amendment. I am very interested in whether the Minister can comment on Clause 4(3) on page 5, which I referred to. It talks about an investigation and a report, but how are we going to know what the commissioner is doing in a general sense and get a general picture of their work? How do Parliament and the public know that? I think that is what this amendment seeks to address.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for introducing these amendments. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, here and note her apologies but also her sterling efforts to get here despite the broken rail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for stepping in.
The noble Earl is right to point out the challenges on recruitment and retention, and the Government are taking a number of steps to try to deal with those outside the remit of the Bill. We can go through all those, on pay, how the childcare arrangements have changed and the change to the recruiting system—there will be a new system from 2027 that will bring the three services together. All those sorts of changes are trying to improve the recruitment process. On the retention aspects of it, we hope and expect that the general welfare investigations and work that the commissioner does may help to address some of the other points that the noble Earl made with respect to their impact.
But I take the point from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: of course the commissioner can look at recruitment and retention if she or he believes them to be of a general welfare concern. Whether they do or not is an open debate, but we are taking other measures outside this Bill to deal with that issue, and we hope that we can address that in the way we want.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, to return to my remarks, I had thanked the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for their contributions to the debate. I welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her arrival and congratulated her on her perseverance. I was just in the process of making a couple of remarks about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made in speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
I will deal with this further in my formal remarks, but the most important thing I can say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, is: look closely at Clause 4(4), which deals with the annual report to which the amendment specifically refers. Public awareness of that, its presentation before Parliament and so on are important, but thematic reports are allowed or contained within the legislation under Clause 4(3), and these again would be laid before Parliament. It is important for us to record that the Bill provides not only for annual reports—they speak for themselves, and they can contain all sorts of recommendations and refer to the thematic reports that the commissioner may or may not have made during the year—but specifically for a number of thematic reports on whatever they choose. It is important to recognise those two different avenues by which various information can be conveyed to Parliament about the commissioner’s work, which is why I referred to that.
I thank the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for highlighting the importance of improving retention in the Armed Forces. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his helpful introduction.
As I mentioned previously, we know that forces personnel have cited the impact of service life on their families and personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave the service. That is the very reason we have brought forward this Bill: if, by shining a light on welfare matters that affect the quality of service life, we can get after those matters, it should follow that fewer of our personnel will feel compelled to leave for those reasons.
As I have said before, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to preclude the commissioner from dedicating one or more thematic investigations, and therefore reports, to retention, if they consider it to be a general service welfare matter. In addition, if retention is relevant to their findings or recommendations for another investigation that they have carried out, there is also nothing to preclude the commissioner from including it in that report as well. However, it is vital to ensure the independence of the commissioner and it should be for them to exercise their discretion and autonomy in deciding on the exact content of their thematic reports.
I turn to Amendment 18, regarding the commissioner’s annual report. The Government’s intention with the establishment of the Armed Forces commissioner role is to increase transparency and accountability. The annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of welfare in the forces and what we must or should do to improve our offer to those who serve.
The existing legislation for the Service Complaints Ombudsman sets out their functions and requirements. This includes the production of an annual report, which must contain anything that the current ombudsman thinks appropriate to the exercise of their functions for that year. Clause 2 of the Bill transfers the functions of the ombudsman to the commissioner and Clause 4(4), as I already mentioned, makes the necessary tweaks to their existing annual reporting requirements to ensure that they also include the commissioner’s new functions under the Bill. The commissioner therefore still has to produce an annual report, and it must be laid before Parliament.
In the other place, the Secretary of State stated his intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. I hope that this promise to make the annual report a key part of parliamentary business is one of the ways of demonstrating how seriously both the Secretary of State and I already take the findings of the commissioner.
The commissioner will be in a unique and unprecedented position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our Armed Forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and the public a range of issues faced by service personnel. To overly define what should be in the scope of the annual report may undermine their independence.
The Secretary of State will remove any material in a report that they consider is against the interests of national security or that might jeopardise someone’s personal safety. There will be stringent safeguards as part of this review process to ensure that the Secretary of State’s remit for redactions is limited to these categories. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have only 30 sitting days from receipt to lay thematic reports before Parliament. A 30-day limit for an annual report that could be hundreds of pages long may be challenging, if we are to provide the appropriate level of national security and personal safety checks necessary in this context. The report, however, will be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable.
By convention, it is common practice for the Government to respond to the recommendations of independent commissioners or ombudsmen, but I note the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to see this more clearly spelled out in legislation. With regards to a response being required within three calendar months, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the Government respond in a timely manner; however, this may prove to be an unrealistic timeframe. The recommendations would be unknown and likely to require a substantive amount of consideration by the department. The three-month deadline is likely to lead only to a very high-level response, rather than to the more considered response that we would like.
I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On these grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore, which I have signed. My noble friend apologises for his absence, as he is attending his son’s wedding this week.
This is an important Bill, and one that I broadly support, as it will give greater support to serving personnel and their families. However, I believe that it is only right and proper that veterans who have devoted their lives bravely to supporting their country should be afforded the same protection as serving personnel and their families.
It seems strange to me that, while the independent Armed Forces commissioner will have statutory powers throughout the United Kingdom, the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such statutory powers. They are employed on only a part-time basis, with limited staff. Having said that, I have to say that all the veterans’ commissioners, within their remit, deliver an excellent service to veterans.
The proposed new clause is about how we engage in a meaningful way in our veterans’ needs and develop a close relationship between the veterans’ commissioners and the Armed Forces commissioner, as many of the issues they face may be of a similar nature and cross-cutting. Today, our Armed Forces veterans continue to need support for housing, employment and vital public services such as improved healthcare. Amendment 20 would have the effect of making provisions for the commissioner to hold regular meetings with the veterans’ commissioners across the country, where they could discuss specific matters pertaining to their area of the United Kingdom. This would allow the commissioner to be well briefed on the needs of each region.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved Administrations, so the Armed Forces covenant, for example, may be administered in slightly different ways. It is important that the Armed Forces commissioner is aware of these difficulties. In Northern Ireland, the implementation of the covenant is solely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and their agencies.
Unlike in Scotland and Wales, local councils in Northern Ireland have no role in the provision of housing, health, adult social care or children’s services, which fall to the various agencies. In many parts of England, Scotland and Wales, members of the Armed Forces who have urgent housing needs are given high priority and are not required to show a local connection to be offered suitable accommodation. However, in Northern Ireland, social housing is provided solely on a points basis, regulated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is prevented by legislation from giving priority to Armed Forces personnel. The lack of a local connection will result in fewer points being awarded to them and, as a result, the applicant will not reach the required quota for the allocation of social housing.
This is only one illustration of the differences that exist between regions. The Armed Forces commissioner would benefit greatly by having meetings with the three veterans’ commissioners, at least once a year, to be made fully aware of the diversity between the nations. It is also essential that the Armed Forces commissioner is in close contact with the assemblies and their connected agencies. It is therefore important that there is co-ordination throughout the United Kingdom and that the commissioner is made fully aware of the problems that are specific to the veterans of the different areas.
Unfortunately, in the Bill as it stands, the Armed Forces commissioner has no remit to represent veterans. The proposed new clause in Amendment 20 would permit engagement between the Armed Forces commissioner and the veterans’ commissioners and would go some way to delivering an effective service for our serving personnel and their families. The primary aim of the amendment is to co-ordinate to address the needs of serving personnel and veterans right across the United Kingdom and it would go some way to improving the service afforded to both.
Finally, can the Minister say whether the veterans’ commissioners have been consulted on this Bill? If so, have they expressed any opinion about holding meetings with the Armed Forces commissioner? Do the three veterans’ commissioners hold joint meetings between themselves to understand the difficulties that they may have? Can the Minister assure me that the Veterans Minister will have a major role in co-ordinating all this?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, my general remarks will answer the various questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I thank both for the way they introduced their amendments and the very important points they raised, which are worthy of consideration.
Amendments 19 and 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the Armed Forces commissioner’s interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner has a duty to secure, maintain and review arrangements for the procedures that deal with complaints, conduct matters, and death and serious injury matters. It is independent from the service police and the MoD.
I bring noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there is no overlap between the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner. Indeed, they both have an entirely different focus: the Armed Forces commissioner is focused on the general service welfare of our Armed Forces and their families; the Service Police Complaints Commissioner provides oversight of the service police complaints process to raise standards in service policing and secure trust and confidence in the service police complaints system. The SPCC’s role is similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is the police complaints watchdog for England and Wales. It is responsible for investigating the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the police and sets the standards by which the police should handle complaints.
Turning to engagement between the commissioners, as the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner are both independent, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers to work together effectively. It is likely that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including—importantly for the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto—the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.
Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent—as per the noble Baroness’s Amendment 19—would likely prove to be unrealistic. With an office of this scale and importance, it will likely take time for the commissioner to develop the necessary processes and to undertake the breadth of engagement outlined previously. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness—as well as the noble Earl—without needing to specify details of engagement in the Bill. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate time.
Before I continue, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to the Committee’s proceedings. Her knowledge and experience as Victims’ Commissioner are welcome, so we are very pleased to see her here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for introducing Amendment 20, after Clause 5 and on veterans’ commissioners. It is in his name, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, and we completely understand why he is not present with us. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sought a requirement for the Armed Forces commissioner to engage with the veterans’ commissioners.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.
As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for tabling these amendments, which allow us to discuss the issue of reserves. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, yes, reserves are covered and are within scope of the Bill when they are subject to service law. I have made that point on a number of occasions, but I say it again so that we are absolutely clear of the fact and have no misunderstanding.
I need to declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, my son-in-law is an active reservist. I have to be careful about that because, as noble Lords can imagine, he is not without an opinion about certain things—nor indeed is the rest of the family—so I put that on the record. He was active in Iraq. My noble friend pointed out the service of reservists in these campaigns, and my son-in-law was one of them. We all know people who are, were or will be reserves.
The Bill does not cover cadets, as the noble Baroness pointed out, although they are of course a major policy issue, as well as a major source of pride for us all. We hope that they both develop and expand. I will respond to a few of the points made before I make my formal reply.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Having read the Bill, I know that the Minister is right: the reservists are covered while they are under service law. But what about individuals who are not on active service but who, for example, are affected by mental health problems or injuries they have sustained, and find it difficult to get redress for those things, which are a result of their service? How would that be covered? Would the commissioner be able to look at those individuals, who might not be active at the time but are still reservists? I can give examples of individuals like that who have sat at home for long periods of time, who are not active but were ignored by the system.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The answer to that is yes. I say to my noble friend, as I would to any noble Lord, that if there are instances of anything like that, he should bring them to my attention. I cannot always promise an answer, but I will always ensure that things are looked into. If my noble friend has something he wants me to look at, of course I will do so.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I am sorry to press the point. My noble friend the Minister said, “Yes”, but can he clarify that? This is important. The Bill says that they are covered by service law. If an individual, for example, has been on operations, has mental health problems, and has been detached from his unit for a while and is trying to get help, he is not technically covered by service law in those situations. Would he or she still be able to go to the commissioner and say, “Wait, we are not getting treatment or support in the way that we deserve”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My understanding is that, in that situation, the issue arose as a consequence of service law. If that is wrong, I will clarify the position in a letter, and I will copy in all noble Lords in the Committee. My understanding is that, because the issue arose when they were subject to service law, the commissioner could therefore still look at it.
It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his own service. He mentioned Mr Davey, whom I acknowledge as well. There will be many other people whom we all know and who deserve congratulations and respect for their service. I ask the noble Lord to pass on the thanks of all noble Lords in this Committee to his unit, which, as he pointed out, has done particularly well. I also thank him for his speech and the various points he made in it, which were very good. The importance of what he said is not only shown in the answers he receives; it is in the fact that people will have heard his comments and the opinions he expressed. That also influences opinion in a way that is not always obvious, so he should take great credit for that. It is self-evident that we must consider the needs of reservists, but that is not always said as loudly and clearly as it should be, so the noble Lord taking the opportunity to do so when speaking to his amendments is extremely important.
My noble friend Lord Beamish outlined, in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the importance of reservists and the even greater role that, potentially, they may be asked to play in future. We will see what happens with that. My noble friend pointing out the importance of reservists is extremely welcome.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, for the point he made about our dialogue and interaction on reservists and when they would be subject to service law. On the engagement point and the comments that he read out, we are actively considering how we would do that. I imagine that that would be through surveys and visits and by talking to individual reservists and their units about their needs, requirements and concerns. It is not necessarily for me to lay out to the commissioner exactly how to do that, but that is how I would expect a commissioner to work to ensure that the views and opinions of reservists were gleaned.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the importance of veterans, the centrality of their commitment and their importance to the regulars, with whom they often train and serve side by side. He will know of that importance better than most of us, from his own military background and experience. He, too, was right to point out the importance of reservists.
I have already answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on whether reservists are included in the scope of the Bill.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on the Armed Forces commissioner’s consideration of and consultation with reserves. As I said, our Armed Forces reserves play a vital role in supporting our national security, and we recognise their dedication and value their work and well-being, showing them the same high regard as our regular service personnel. The contribution, skills and commitment of our reserves are essential to our operational strength, and I believe that every Member of the Committee would agree with that. As I said before, I hope that the noble Lord can pass that on to his friends and colleagues.
It is for that reason that reserves are within the scope of the new commissioner. As with regular members of the Armed Forces, members of the reserves will be able to contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service, and have those issues considered. That was the point I made to my noble friend Lord Beamish: they can contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service. That goes to the point that my noble friend rightly raised.
Lord Coaker
“21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill.
However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation.
I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I shall make a couple of points before getting started. The principle of this was accepted when the Committee accepted Clause 3. This change or clarification makes this a technical amendment to make sure that the legislation is consistent with a clause that we have already passed. That is why we talk about it being a technical amendment. It is something that is often done in government legislation, whereby an in-principle change is made but sometimes, when it is fully considered, a drafting error appears or it becomes apparent that there was another piece of legislation that should have been referred to—and this is what was found with respect to this issue.
Amendment 23 was brought forward not to change the principle or re-establish any new thoughts but simply to ensure that there is legislative consistency across government with respect to Clause 3, which the Committee had already passed. That was why we proposed it as a minor and technical amendment. I would not have brought forward something to this Committee that was a substantial policy change. The noble Baroness is quite right that that should be discussed in the main Chamber, and I absolutely accept that.
Service complaints are never made directly to the commissioner; first, they have to go through the service complaints procedure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman function has been taken on board by the Armed Forces commissioner, but they will not address service complaints; in fact, if there is a service complaint, they will send them back for an admissibility decision. So the service complaints procedure is not impacted in that sense; the Service Complaints Ombudsman function is impacted on.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.
Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.
Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.
My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.
I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only thing I will add about Gibraltar is that things move very slowly. Having been the MoD Minister responsible for Gibraltar, I know that things do not move quickly. The Armed Forces Act 2011 was not signed into Gibraltar law until 2018. If the chief Minister has given a commitment that this will take less time than it took to enact the Armed Forces Act 2011, then, with that and my noble friend’s explanation, it has been worth having this debate. We have had it for every single Armed Forces Bill—certainly that I have been involved in. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who owes me a large drink for moving his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.