Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.