Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Kramer

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her amendment. I am not going to repeat the strong and powerful case that she made, but I want to pick up on a couple of issues. Whistleblowing and a complaints process are two different things—it is a point that I tried to make on Report. A coherent complaints process is exceedingly important, and it can rise to the level of commissioner, but whistleblowing is an opportunity to deal with things that are far more systemic and come, in a sense, from a different perspective from that of a complaint. That is why, if we look at financial services regulators or regulators in essence across the piece, we will find they all have both channels. They have a complaints channel for people who run into an issue where they have a really serious complaint that they want to raise, but they also have a whistleblowing channel so that where somebody comes across intelligence, has an awareness or sees something that they think should be attended to because it has much deeper implications, they use that whistleblowing channel to go to the investigative or regulatory body.

To me, it is extraordinary to put in place a new Armed Forces commissioner, a clearly important and independent role, and not give that commissioner the tools which you would normally give anybody else picking up that kind of commissioner role so that, through the whistleblowing route, they can receive and reach for information. Without that information, it is very hard for him or her to function in that role.

I think one of the reasons why this is not in the Bill and was not in the Bill from the start is that a change in culture and mindset is taking place. We are now seeing with many Bills coming through this House the issue of whistleblowing being raised, because the public have become aware every time there is a scandal that there have been people who have spoken out but who have not been heard, have been silenced and have suffered detriment, so now there is a search to put whistleblowing protection, almost as a standard norm, in Bill after Bill—I think it would be better to unify it in one place, but I am not going to make that argument today.

An Armed Forces commissioner needs to receive a regular and steady flow of information to enable them to carry out the role that is intended. I think the establishment of a whistleblowing channel will create far more trust among service personnel, who quite frankly understand better than we do the limitations of complaints systems. When somebody enters a complaints system, they typically see themselves as raising a specific personal issue or one among friends which they want to be resolved. In a welfare case, it may well be a situation where housing repairs have not been carried out. It is a perfectly reliable and important channel, but whistleblowing touches something deeper and more fundamental and systemic. To have that channel running parallel is not exceptional; it is the norm. In fact, excluding it is the exception, so I ask the House to seriously consider this.

As I said, if this Bill was being written six months from now, given the discussion there has been around these issues in Bill after Bill, it would automatically have been put in place. I do not want to slow this Bill down as it is important, but I do ask the Government to quickly draft something that they feel captures all these issues, with the legal expertise that they have, and not to lose this opportunity.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but the purpose of the Bill is to expand the remit of the service complaints ombudsman, who can only look at service complaints, to the commissioner who, as my noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out, can also look at thematic and systemic issues—so it is a complete expansion and change of the role.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we are passing legislation here. The whistleblower amendment is not connected to new Section 340IB. There are two different tiers of somebody coming to the commissioner. There is the first tier, which gives the commissioner all the powers and advantages that noble Lords want: viewing premises, observing, power of entry—all the things laid out in 340IB. That is not in the amendment for the whistleblower. If we pass the whistleblowing amendment, the powers of entry and other powers would not be made available to the commissioner. That is why it becomes a two-tier system, and I suspect that, if noble Lords had the Bill in front of them, they would see exactly the point I am making.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his point. Let us say that somebody comes forward as a whistleblower, raising a hugely important thematic issue, and the commissioner says, “I am going to investigate that”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, pointed out, they cannot do it if the whistleblower says “No, I don’t want you to do it”, because it can be done only with the consent of the whistleblower.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the point the Minister is making but, in all the years when I have met whistleblowers, I have never met one who came forward intending to speak to somebody and then closed down the issue that they had just raised. Whistleblowers are looking for investigation. But, if he were to present something in lieu that corrected that very small lacuna in the language—three or four words, as far as I can see—I am sure that no one would object.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that we are legislating here, not on a wing and a prayer and not on the basis of what may happen or the fact that this has never happened. We are a legislature and we are trying to legislate for things that actually may happen.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Kramer

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

There is not. My noble friend is quite right to point that out.

The term whistleblower is not a universally recognised term in law. That may be irrelevant to us in considering the debate, but it is of relevance to us as a legislature. There is some limited precedence for its use, there is no single meaning, and it requires additional context to explain what the term means in each case. The amendment seeks to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but it would not create any additional protections for those people, because, as I have said, the commissioner can already investigate everything that the amendment lists—as my noble friend Lord Beamish has pointed this out—whether it involves a whistleblowing-type situation to expose a general service issue or a personal issue that somebody wants to raise individually. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters that they choose. Anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the class of person defined in the amendments.

Once established, the Armed Forces commissioner and their office will automatically be bound by data protection legislation. This means that, for all individuals who contact the commissioner, the information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections under the existing legislation. That includes the principle of protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their personal data.

None the less, as noble Lords know, to try to address the continuing concerns, the Government considered what more they might do. In considering this amendment, noble Lords should remember that the holy grail of all this is anonymity. People will not have trust and confidence in a system if they do not believe that, if they wish it, there is anonymity; they will be frightened of the consequences, whether of whistleblowing or of raising an issue on a personal level.

We are looking at this and, in addition to the substantial protections afforded by data protection legislation, we undertake to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would go further in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner to preserve the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. This will prevent a complainant’s details coming into the hands of the Secretary of State or the general public without the consent of the complainant, but it will not interfere with the commissioner’s ability to use the information in connection with an investigation. In other words, the Government have conceded that anonymity is an issue and commit to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading that will put that in the Bill, to ensure that anonymity is protected in legislation.

I say again, because it is so important, that trust and confidence are everything. Who will come forward—whatever the legislation says—without trust and confidence in that system? At the heart of that is anonymity. That is the legislative proposal that we are seeking to bring forward at Third Reading, should we be in a position procedurally to do so.

There is a further issue that is not legislative— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised it. The Government commit to update our current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. This update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. This will include provisions relating to anonymity and confidentiality, ensuring that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I ask the Minister for clarification. All those things will be in a policy document, as I understand it. Can he explain to me the legal standing of a policy document? That would be so helpful.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Lord Coaker and Baroness Kramer

Committee stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Sikka, who again comes forward with a number of amendments that are common sense and seek to shine a light on what is actually going on, and would deliver the transparency that so many of us seek in the Bill. We come to the transition period and the retrospective application, which is the subject of one of the most important groups, if not the most important group, of amendments this evening. It relates to the speed at which the register is implemented, as well as new measures that will apply during a proposed six-month transition period.

My noble friend Lady Chapman, along with the noble Lord, Lord Fox—we are grateful for his support—tabled Amendments 56, 61, 80 and 83. They seek to accelerate the implementation of the register of overseas entities, requiring initial registration within 28 days of commencement—again, seeking to avoid a situation where individuals or entities simply circumvent the law. This is not just a view held by us: the ICAEW, an accountants’ body, in the briefing that it sent your Lordships, also supported three months as a new transition period, with the ability to extend it for a further three months, were there a need to do so.

It is also worth noting that the sanction provisions—Part 1 of the Bill—will not commence on Royal Assent. Rather, they will require a commencement order laid by the Secretary of State. We understand that various steps need to be taken before that order can be laid. Can the Minister indicate how many steps there might be and roughly how long that will take? Is the upcoming Prorogation of Parliament, for example, likely to delay the introduction of any of the enabling regulations? When the Government moved from 18 months to six months in the other place, that left many thinking that the register would be active before the year end. Could it not actually be longer, given the need to implement various IT changes, inform people of the new requirements and so on? The House requires some reassurance about the commencement: in other words, when do the six months actually start? It could be six months now before the six months start: that would be a year for the implementation period. That is of real concern to us all, given the concerns that there are about the six months; so while we welcome the measures outlined in government Amendments 86 and 87, they do not prevent land being sold, gifted or transferred, and neither do they further reduce the current six-month implementation window. As many noble Lords said at Second Reading, a register of overseas entities has been promised for a number of years, and we certainly do not want any further delay, but there are serious questions to be asked.

Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we also tabled Amendment 92. This is an evolution of the David Davis amendment considered in the other place. We accept that one very high-profile person of interest was Roman Abramovich. He is now subject to sanctions, and he plans to leave Chelsea under whatever arrangements he manages to make—or not, given the sanctions on him. However, one of the concerns around his case was that the Home Office was actually studying his affairs, but had no powers to take interim action while that assessment was being carried out. Is there therefore not a great deal of merit in our amendment, which seeks to freeze assets on an interim basis where there is good reason for doing so? In other words, if we are looking to sanctioning somebody, surely we would want to freeze their assets to prevent them from getting rid of them before a full order is put in place. At the moment, as I understand it, that cannot happen. I am not sure that under the Bill it would able to take place either, without this amendment. The Government might wish to look at the interim freezing of assets.

It might be, for example, that a person of interest hails from Belarus, which continues to enable the actions of Russia’s armed forces. What can be done about that? Does the legislation cover people in that situation as well? Again, we pose these questions to be helpful to the Government and raise serious concerns. We want the initiatives to succeed, but it is only with scrutiny—and the Government reacting and responding to the scrutiny, and acting on the various amendments that noble Lords have put forward from across this House—that we can have confidence in them. There might be only a few bad individuals among the applicants to the new register but the truth is, as my noble friend Lord Sikka and others have said, that we simply will not know what the case is unless there is maximum transparency. That transparency cannot come quickly enough.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my colleagues are doing all the heavy lifting from these Benches, and I am incredibly grateful to them. I have signed Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I think found itself in drifting into the wrong group: it is actually part of group 3. One of the reasons why I signed it is this frustration, which I know the Government share, that, before a sanction is actually put in place, the individual who is likely to be sanctioned has, in a sense, plenty of warning signs and can use that opportunity to move various resources to a safe haven.

Much of the conversation around this Bill has been on fixed assets that are difficult to liquidate—property or complex companies—and I can understand why they might be less concerned about people knowing they are about to be sanctioned having the opportunity to move those. However, those same individuals tend to have very large investments in far more easily transportable assets—cash equivalents. I know that the Government are going to be looking at cryptocurrencies, which I have been very concerned about, when they get to the second phase of this Bill. It would, however, also be wrong to ignore such assets as jewellery and art. That is not just a tale from an Agatha Christie novel. I was a banker for many years in the mid-west, and most of my clients were exemplary people, but we certainly had one scoundrel who made the slight mistake of trying to impress a very charming young woman with an English accent and, as a consequence and with the aid of specialists, I was able to seize something worth close to half a billion dollars in artwork and jewellery against an attempt to defraud the bank. I ask therefore that the Minister think about these liquid assets, which play a part of the picture, but have been very little part of the discussion.