Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Newlove Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting section for me, as the Victims’ Commissioner, because it feels very much like déjà vu. Governments like to do the window dressing but they do not put in the greater detail that will put the pillars into this role.

I want this to be a successful role. Yesterday, I was in—is it Havant? I should have learned my geography when I was at high school. I met all the military—their services, law and everything. There is a will to change the culture and to change for victims but, as I said at Second Reading, I worry that we have to resource this. I know that there is not a lot of money around and that defence has quite a high profile on its own ability but, in terms of this role being a success, I worry about the word “may”; the Bill says that the Secretary of State “may” give this for other staff.

I say that because of my present situation looking at budgets. There are figures being made without consulting the Victims’ Commissioner, so I am conscious that there could be figures made without consulting the Armed Forces commissioner. Previous amendments looked at this commissioner coming in and being raring to go; actually, in reality and practicality, things will take the first three years after their establishment. As with any business outside this Westminster bubble, it takes many years to set up staff because the process of getting staff is so slow.

It is also about enabling your network. It does not matter what that looks like: we have to ensure that we can make those resources available. Yes, I would like the costing to go down because there will be fewer victims, but, in reality, that could do a disservice to the gold-standard service that the commissioner gives. You are then going to whittle it down. I am really concerned about where we will get the resources. I do not want individuals to feel as though we are going to have all the grandeur and that we have committed to this as legislators but, in reality, when they go through the nooks and crannies of this, we have set things up to fail at the first hurdle. I say this in terms of not just the commissioner we put in place but the victims, the families and everybody else, because I know that there is a huge family in the military; I learned a lot about it yesterday.

It is more important that we start as we mean to go on. I do support this Bill. I am not looking at the Minister because he is not in charge of the purse strings, but I know—I have the scars to prove it and am still doing it—that, if you do not set up this role as it should be, it will absolutely do a disservice to the people who are desperate to have that voice of an independent.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be very brief with these amendments.

I suggest that it is difficult to see how one should quantify what constitutes adequate assistance for the commissioner. Of course, the commissioner must have the necessary resources to execute their duties efficiently. The Explanatory Notes estimate that, as my noble friend Lord Lancaster pointed out, the cost of this new office will be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million; that is considerably larger than the current cost of the ombudsman, which is £1.8 million. The funding, therefore, has been expanded. Is it sufficient?

Furthermore, as is the usual course, the Secretary of State will have to ensure that the commissioner receives the correct level of support. I am minded to conclude that these amendments may not be entirely necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 9 to 11 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Newlove) (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 12 as Amendment 11 was not moved.

Committee adjourned at 7.32 pm.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Newlove Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Baroness Newlove Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the Government, because we have to send a message out there for young people. While I respect all noble Lords who talk about criminalising young people, I stand with several hats on here. I have worked with young people in prisons and with a YOT, and have gone around to find out evidence. The main thing that worries me in all this is that we can put prevention orders up—we have to send a message; we owe that to the rest of society, who do not feel safe—but I want to prevent the young people I have spoken about having to carry a knife to feel safe. We need to stop them early, saying that it is not really right for them. Some young people in gangs have said they do not want to do it but have no choice.

There are several messages here about young children. I have three young daughters who saw their father murdered by hands and feet; they have suffered and could have gone down the criminal route. It would have been justified to put them in that box and to say that there is a reason why they do it. It is the same for a knife. These young people will carry knives to protect themselves, but do not want to. So we have to have something there—a message for communities and young children to feel safe. I am very grateful for the Centre for Social Justice briefing on this. It welcomes the process of the order, but is concerned about the mechanisms of how it will be carried out.

The whole point here is protecting the child. We are hearing much about criminalising a child but not about looking after the child’s welfare. I ask my noble friend the Minister, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, whether we could make it a weapon-neutral offence that sends a message to all those carrying blades, knives and everything. Making it specific to a knife or blade does not really have the effect we want. We need to send a generalised message to help protect young people. I am concerned that we are not standing up here and protecting young people in the first place. We are looking at criminalising young people when they have been caught with something on them. We have to protect the people I have been speaking to, because they are really scared to come out of the school grounds. They go home to protect themselves. We are not looking at that niche of young children.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support many of the comments made by other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. There are many problems with these prevention orders. We may need orders of some sort, but surely not these. I hope we have a really serious discussion about how to protect children. In subsection (5) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 73A, the reasons accepted as good reasons for carrying a knife do not include a fear of harm. Yet, as other noble Lords have said, this is probably the most common reason. I regard it as utterly right and proper; we do not want kids carrying knives, but if you are terrified of being attacked you should not be criminalised for carrying a knife in your pocket to protect yourself. I hope that before Report the Minister will give serious thought to including at least that—that is just one tiny bit—in the reasons accepted as good reasons.

A second problem is that, according to subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 73C:

“An application for a knife crime prevention order … may be made without the applicant giving notice to the defendant”.


The police can impose an interim knife crime prevention order, and the same requirements may be made under that interim order as under a full knife crime prevention order. Yet the defendant does not even know this is happening and has not put their side of the story or explained, for example, that they were carrying the knife only because they were petrified of the three boys who live down the road who were trying to get them involved in a gang. What is going on? I am terribly worried about that bit of it.

Others have mentioned the standard of proof— the balance of probability—when these kids go into criminality. Surely that cannot be right. However, there are many more general concerns about the imposition of yet more criminal deterrents on children as young as 12. I have read some briefings carefully and I want to refer to the one from the Children’s Society. According to its Good Childhood Report 2017, an estimated 950,000 children aged between 10 and 17 had experienced crime. No wonder crime is often cited as the reason children carry weapons. This problem is rife and of course we all want something done about it, but are we really tackling it in the right way here? I do not think so.

We know that for two decades the Government have attempted to deter violent crime and anti-social behaviour through the imposition of criminal and punitive civil deterrents. So far, such deterrents have not had a substantial impact on reducing the level of youth crime and youth violence, but that is what we all want—we certainly do not want knife crime. Of course we want violence to be reduced, but these approaches have been shown not to work. As we know, the level of knife crime has risen sharply. There is a body of evidence to show that criminalised interventions do not lower crime rates. I referred in an earlier debate to the meeting in which we listened to Neil Woods. After years of working as an undercover officer and catching people involved in criminal gangs and so on, he realised that he was making not a jot of difference to criminality and violence. He threw it all up and has now written books on the subject. He knows that he has not made any difference, having put his whole life on the line and having been in considerable danger for many years. We need to listen to people like him.

Does the Minister accept that the Home Office needs to make targeting the adults who coerce, control and threaten these kids a much greater priority? Surely Ministers should not target these children with these orders. It just does not feel right and, to be perfectly frank, I do not understand it. Therefore, can we amend these proposed new clauses before Report to ensure that, if we are to have prevention orders—and I think that we probably need them—they focus on positive inputs for children under the age of 18 with the provision of support, treatment in the case of kids addicted to alcohol or drugs, educational guidance and help to secure the safety of the child.

When a child is considered for an order, surely they should be referred to children’s social care for an assessment under the Children Act 1989 or to the national referral mechanism as appropriate. If the child is found to be at risk of exploitation, the police response surely needs to be entirely different from that envisaged in these amendments. I am not saying that there should not be a response but it should be different. As I said in relation to another amendment, we know that short-term prison sentences have very poor results in terms of reoffending. Why would we have more of them? In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be willing to discuss how the emphasis of the amendments can be shifted from punitive, unsuccessful, short-term incarceration to something that will work. We have quite a lot of knowledge about what might work.

It is difficult to debate these proposals without reference to the huge cuts to youth services in this country. I know that it could be said that this is a political point but I do not mean it to be that at all. It is pretty desperate when £400 million is taken off those services at a time when we want these children to be referred to them for support, and £51 million has been put into the Serious Violence Strategy. That is one-eighth of the cuts—it is a peanut; it is nothing. Local authorities are facing a deficit in their budgets for children’s and young people’s services of £3 billion over the next five years. It seems that spending on police, courts and prisons is fine but spending on real prevention and turning young people around is something that we can dispense with. I say that because it is obvious that we should put money there rather than elsewhere. I look forward to the Minister’s response.