Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

We are in danger of not overpublicising but causing confusion. The majority of the service complaints system which is lifted and dropped into the Bill still remains the responsibility of the single service. One of my concerns at Second Reading was, for a number of reasons in a number of different areas, that we will begin to raise expectations. I am not sure that the Service Complaints Commissioner would welcome it if, all of a sudden, they are having a whole series of complaints directed at them which rightly should go through the service complaints system. So we need to be very careful how we advertise this; otherwise, we will cause a right mess if we are not careful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. Let us be clear that the service complaints system remains in place; it is the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities that are being transferred into the Armed Forces commissioner role. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for allowing me to reiterate that point. He is absolutely right that, in most circumstances, the commissioner will refer individual service complaints back to the individual service for it to look into. I agree with him on his point about ensuring that that system continues and works in the way that we would all want it to, and the Armed Forces commissioner’s responsibility is with respect to the general welfare issues that arise.

In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, when we look at how we publicise that—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has highlighted the reserves—we will make sure that we take on board the point that the noble Lord just made so that there is no confusion, but that at the same time we create a culture where people feel able to bring something forward to the appropriate body, whatever that may be.

I just want to address another point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made. It was a very important point, which should be reiterated, about how some of the poor behaviours we see reflect on the image in total of the Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to answer the “So what?” question.

I just say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—or maybe it is to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—that, subject to the will of Parliament, we hope that the Bill will get Royal Assent in late spring this year, and the Armed Forces Bill will come into effect early in 2026. So that is the timeline that that we are operating to.

Just for information to the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s contract runs out at the end of 2025, but within the Bill there are transitional arrangements that are able to be made should there be a period between the end of her contract and the start of the Armed Forces commissioner role. I just want to be clear about that.

I turn to the formal remarks that I wish to make. Amendment 2 relates to the addition of those undergoing the recruitment to the Armed Forces so that they come under the commissioner’s scope. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns about potential recruits. From the first day in uniform to the last, the Government are committed to all members of the Armed Forces and to supporting their families. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete attestation—as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned—transforming them into recruits who are members of the Armed Forces. This means that they and their families are within the commissioner’s scope.

The experience of a potential recruit—a candidate—is very important and, as such, we have set a new ambition for the Armed Forces to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days, and to provide a provisional start date within 30 days. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out—the figure I have is more than 100,000—up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope may vastly increase the workload of the commissioner, watering down their ability to focus on other key areas impacting service personnel and their families.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government’s work on improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent, highlighting that defence is a modern forward-thinking and forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career. Our aim is to attract and recruit more, as well as to maximise the number of applicants who successfully enter and remain in the Armed Forces’ employment.

Turning to Amendment 10, I will start to answer some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised concerning the definition of “families”. I again thank the noble Earl and thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I acknowledge her concerns about providing certainty to all Members on the application of the Bill. I promised that during Second Reading, and I have apologised for the late arrival of the regulations. But the debate that we have had from my noble friend Lord Beamish and others about what should be in those regulations will be something that we can return to as the Bill progresses but also when the draft regulations are debated by this place and the other place.

I welcome the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and thank it for considering the Bill so carefully. It provides a vital role in ensuring the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before Report.

The families definition outlined in the regulations seeks to include all groups that have a close familial relationship with the serviceperson. In broad categories, the draft definition covers partners or former partners of a serviceperson, including those who are married or in a civil partnership, or someone in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership—namely, a long-term relationship. I can hear others already saying, “What do you mean by ‘long-term’?” I just say that we are attempting to create a definition—I am just trying to head off my noble friend Lord Beamish before he challenges me on what “long-term” means. The serious point is that we are trying to have a wide definition, and we understand the difficulty that that raises. But we will take on board the points that people make.

The draft definition also includes children of the serviceperson—either the serviceperson’s own children or their stepchildren—as well as their partner’s children or a child for whom the serviceperson is caring or has financial responsibilities. It includes parental figures of the serviceperson, which will include parents and stepparents and anyone who acted in a parental role when the serviceperson was under 18, such as a long-term foster carer or kinship carer. The definition also includes a sibling of the serviceperson, be that a full or half sibling or a stepsibling, or someone who legitimately considers themselves a sibling of a serviceperson through their upbringing. Again, noble Lords can understand some of the difficulty that may arise with that, but they can understand our attempt to capture as wide a number of people as we can.

The draft definition also includes other specified relatives of the serviceperson or their partner where they are part of the serviceperson’s household, are financially dependent on them or are cared for by the serviceperson or their partner. It includes bereaved family members if they fall under any of the above categories immediately before the serviceperson’s death. Although the definition explicitly includes bereaved families, it does not specifically use the term “kinship carers”. The definition has been drafted to ensure that service personnel who are kinship carers, or kinship carers of the serviceperson when they were growing up, are in scope, thus giving biological parents and those who acted as a kinship carer the same access to the commissioner.

Going back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is why there is a difference between the definition here and some of the other definitions with respect to the use of “families”. Our intention is to try to draw that as widely as possible and, therefore, that is why there are some of the differences that the noble Earl mentioned. I hope that provides some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness, on both her amendments, is trying to achieve.

I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this aspect of the Bill. We will again take into account the points that have been made and reflect on them, not least about the need for us to consider the draft regulations, as well as the points that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made about recruit training and a need for us to consider where particular arrangements may be made. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As that was a direct question, I put it on the record that I do not know the answer. We will find it out, and if I do not write before the end of Committee, I will make sure that I say something on Report in answer to that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

It just came to my mind now, and my memory may be wrong, but I thought that was the case. If it was, it would be interesting to know why that provision has been taken out as the Bill has evolved, because it is probably quite a good thing. On the one hand, I can see the advantages of having a former member of the Armed Forces but, on the other, I would not want them to be in the Armed Forces on Friday and doing this role on Monday, which is why that time gap would be useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say is that our belief, understanding and intention is for it to be an open and transparent process, subject to the scrutiny of the House of Commons Select Committee, which we would see as having a role. Of course, in the end, the Secretary of State ultimately has responsibility for the decision whether to appoint or not. We in this Committee all know the power, influence and significance of the Select Committees of both Houses. They are powerful and significant committees that carry a huge amount of influence and weight and, as I say, the Secretary of State will fully take them into account before making a final decision.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

On the appointment process, which we touched on earlier, I am grateful that the Minister will come back to me about the air gap, but could I entice him to offer a view as to whether he thinks it would be appropriate to have an air gap to prevent a member of the Armed Forces doing this job, in the same way, perhaps, as Ministers have a two-year ACOBA process after leaving their posts? Even if there was not going to be an air gap, perhaps a serving member of the Armed Forces could not apply for the job because there would then be an overlap that could potentially influence behaviour. It is important that there is a gap, and I would be fascinated to know what the Minister’s view is.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is very tempting to say what I think about this, but I am not going to. I think the Committee will share my view that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has raised a very important point and that we need to properly understand what the law is at the moment and look at his reference to what happened or did not happen in the past. I cannot, therefore, stand here and give a view, because I do not know—that is the honest, open and frank answer. But either in Committee next week or, certainly, on Report, I will be able to tell noble Lords what the situation is. At that point, I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, what my personal view is, but for the moment I thank him for a very important question about whether there should be a gap when someone leaves the Armed Forces before they can become the Armed Forces commissioner. It is an important point of principle, on which we will get the proper legal answer.

I will now read into the record the formal pages of my brief, which is necessary. I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their views on the Bill. I acknowledge their concern about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and their views on the length of the term. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident in the existing pre-appointment scrutiny processes giving rigorous and independent scrutiny by Parliament, with the House of Commons Defence Committee testing that the preferred candidate has the right skills and experience and giving its views before a recommendation is made to His Majesty, and a timely appointment process.

As I have said, noble Lords have made good and fair points—I have not mentioned my noble friend Lord Stansgate, but he also did—and we are happy to consider further how we can take all this forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will not press his amendment. I am also happy to consider further not just the scrutiny but the right length of tenure to balance the commissioner being able to effect meaningful change with bringing a fresh perspective to the role.

On Amendment 21, we wanted to say a little bit more on the implementation timeframe, just to clarify. I share the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see the commissioner’s role established and their office operational as soon as practicably possible. We have not included that level of detail in the Bill, as she points out, as that would be an unusual legislative step. However, I am happy to provide further details on the intended timeframe for employing the commissioner and establishing their office as soon as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, also mentioned the timeframe.

As the Committee will be aware, several factors affect the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following completion of the Bill, and the role will be subject to a full public appointment process, regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, drafts of which have been provided to noble Lords. We expect that the process will continue in 2025 and, in parallel, we will undertake the necessary implementation work to ensure a smooth set-up and a transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman position. Therefore, I can now confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026.

I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. With the comments that I have made on considering the points of my noble friend Lord Beamish and others, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Since this is the last group of amendments and probably the last time that I will speak today, I thank everyone for their contributions over the last three hours or so. We will reflect on all the various comments that have been made.

I turn to the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, moved at the beginning of this group, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—obviously, she sent her apologies—as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley. Other Members also gave their support. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl was right to remind us of the sacrifice of our Armed Forces and the esteem in which we all hold them. Although I do not agree with every aspect of his points, the intent of the amendment has a unity of support across this Committee. All noble Lords who supported him in moving the amendment feel that, and I thank him very much for that, because he has highlighted some important issues that I will come back to when I make the formal response.

I shall deal with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Carberry, about the public equality duty, and I will try to deal with some of the concerns that she raised about various groups. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that they are draft regulations, so clearly the remarks that she made about the use of the word “immediate” have been heard. Between now and whenever the draft regulations go forward to become regulations, that may change or may not, depending on the reflections made with respect to that. But we have heard the point that she made on that. On the other point that she raised, we will write to her.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised special needs, which I will refer to in responding to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as I will with respect to the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley.

I commend noble Lords for highlighting some of the important concerns facing our serving personnel and their families. I reassure noble Lords that the commissioner’s remit is broad and covers all general service welfare matters. Indeed, under this remit, they will be able to investigate all the areas that noble Lords have singled out for consideration in these amendments—the continuity of the education allowance, special educational needs, service accommodation, pensions, death in service benefits and the welfare of minority groups—should they consider these to be general service welfare matters within the parameters outlined in the Bill. That is a very significant statement to make at the beginning, and I hope it gives reassurance to the noble Earl that it is within the scope of the Bill, should the commissioner choose to investigate any of these matters as a general welfare concern.

A number of these amendments make reference to the families of serving personnel. Let me reassure noble Lords again that the concerns of service families were at the forefront when drafting the Bill. We recognise that the ability to retain the most talented service personnel is largely influenced by the well-being of their families: as I have said before, this is the very reason why we need an Armed Forces commissioner. Relevant family members are already included in the commissioner’s scope and, as I have said many times this afternoon and early evening, will be defined in secondary legislation. The draft families definition regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of the Bill have now been distributed to all for consideration—and we have seen the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, with its recommendation on the scrutiny of this power, and we will come back to that on Report.

I will read the current situation on inheritance tax, which is that:

“Engagement with the Treasury has confirmed that existing provisions in the Inheritance Act 1984 will continue to ensure that deaths in active service of a warlike nature are exempt from Inheritance Tax. The Inheritance Tax technical consultation has concluded and detailed policy and legislative instructions on the new proposals are now awaited with a further technical consultation to follow. The Ministry of Defence awaits these details and will follow legislation as per Government proposals and guidance will be developed for members in due course”.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am intrigued by this—and the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets. We are clear that, within the Bill, qualification is subject to service law. Of course, members of the Regular Forces are subject to service law 24/7, 365 days a year. It is about the definition of “active service”. Of course, Lee Rigby was murdered outside Woolwich Barracks. Would he, under the new provisions, now not be subject to this payment, or be taxed on it, even though he was probably walking back to work? Would an Army reservist who is claiming a day’s pay travelling to work, or on the way back from work, now not qualify if they were to have an accident? It is an absolute minefield. What would be useful, if I may say so, is a degree of consistency in how we seek to apply the law when we are using service law as a qualification, and subject to service law, as opposed this almost sub-definition as to on duty and off duty. Most service personnel would consider themselves to be on duty 24/7.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The contribution the noble Lord has just made shows the advantage of his experience and knowledge. We will certainly consider that, and I will write to him and circulate the letter to members of the Committee, because some of it is quite technical and legal, and subject to all sorts of various laws under different pieces of legislation. I shall ask my officials to reflect on the point. I could hazard an answer, but I will get a proper, official answer, send it to the noble Lord, copy it to all members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. I hope that that is satisfactory to the noble Lord, because the points that he makes are important, and I do not want inadvertently to mislead or misinform the Committee.

I turn briefly to some of the other points related to the points the noble Lord has made. I note that the significant Amendment 8, raising the Continuity of Education Allowance, special educational needs and service accommodation, refers to former service personnel. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the commissioner’s scope is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on serving personnel and their families, rather than former service personnel. As civilians, veterans already have full access to a range of mechanisms for support and redress and to enable their voices to be heard. Having said that, I have been in the noble Lord’s position, and I know that people sometimes say, “That amendment is not tight enough, it included something that is not within scope”, but that does not alter the fact that the intention of the amendment and of noble Lords, is to draw attention to issues of real concern with respect to serving personnel. As such, of course there are issues around special needs, which the Armed Forces covenant seeks to ensure are addressed properly. When service personnel go abroad, they take with them a form by which they can try to ensure that they are given support.

Special needs is a very real problem. I have to say as an aside that I think that special needs is an issue for all of us across society, from what I understand from friends, family and colleagues. Notwithstanding that, there are obviously particular circumstances with respect to serving personnel, and that needs to be reflected. Certainly, the Armed Forces covenant seeks to address that by saying that nobody should be disadvantaged through their service, and special needs is an example of that.

On the continuity of education allowance, I will not read out all the various statements in my brief. We have had a debate about it in Parliament, and I have answered questions. The noble Earl will have seen the rise in the continuity of education allowance to 90% of that cost, which—I tell him gently—was the policy of the previous Government, too. We cover that 90%. The impact on the behaviour of service personnel in their choice of education has been very limited in terms of the number of people who have changed their decisions on the basis of that change in the law. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, very few people have changed their actions. Notwithstanding that, the noble Earl was right to raise it. We reflected on it as part of the challenge that the Government have and decided that an increase in the continuity of education allowance was important, whatever the rights and wrongs of the overall general government policy, which, obviously, I support.

Turning to Amendment 9, I acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness about pensions and death-in-service benefits, which impact both current and ex-service personnel, as well as their dependants. The amendment seeks to specify pensions, and wider associated benefits for dependants, as a particular area for the commissioner to focus on. As I said, it also seeks to allow former members to raise issues about pensions to the commissioner. Pensions and death-in-service benefits for dependants are of course extremely important and are not precluded from the scope of the commissioner. In the case of pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel and veterans to raise complaints: the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision-makers within the Defence Business Services authority. If unhappy, they—like the vast majority of us—are able to appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman.

I reassure the noble Baroness that I am sympathetic to what Amendments 11 and 12 seek to achieve. The Armed Forces and their families represent a wide-ranging and diverse community, and it is important to acknowledge the experiences of minority groups and service personnel aged under 18 within the Armed Forces. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly, continually raises this issue. Her opinion on the policies for recruiting under-18s to the Armed Forces differs from mine, but let me make it clear, as she and every member of the Committee has, and as we discussed earlier, that any abuse of anybody is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with quickly and forcefully. It is important to address and tackle any matters when they arise that are unique to one or more of these groups. It is vital that any member of the Armed Forces can access the commissioner and trust that he or she will consider their issues, regardless of who they are, where they serve and what they do.

I draw the Committee’s attention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, helpfully did, to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which adds the commissioner to the list of public bodies captured by the public sector equality duty. The commissioner will already have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, which will cover all the characteristics listed in the amendment.

Finally, I assure the Committee that the commissioner’s reporting functions will enable the commissioner to report on any matters that have been raised and to make recommendations in relation to any issues related to minority groups—or, indeed, any of the other issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others. Let me restate that the commissioner will be able to investigate any matters that may materially impact the welfare of those who are subject to service law and their families. It is not necessary to specify this level of detail on any of these matters in legislation.

In fact, creating a list of individual matters for the commissioner’s remit could suggest that these topics are more relevant or important than others and may indirectly narrow the scope of what they consider, which would not necessarily be a desirable outcome. It could also be seen as contrary to upholding the commissioner’s independence. In other words, as soon as one starts to generate lists, one always ends up with an (f) or (g) that says, “and anything else that may be of significance”.

I hope that I have provided the noble Earl, Lord Minto, with the necessary reassurance. I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate; I look forward to continuing our debate and discussion on further amendments on Monday.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

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

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Defence Capabilities

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about our relationship with the United States and its importance. Of course we need to ensure that we protect the systems available to us that protect our own country, but I start from the point of view that one of the most important relationships we have—if not the most important—is with the United States of America. That defends not only our freedom but the freedom of Europe and the values that we all stand for across the world. As such, we ought to welcome that special relationship.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister, who has quickly established himself as a champion for defence within the department. I know that he is determined to deliver 2.5%, but it comes down to money. Does he accept the generally held view that 2.5% is insufficient to deliver a balanced defence budget? While it would be unreasonable to ask him what percentage would deliver a balanced defence budget, can he perhaps reassure your Lordships’ House that the aspiration for 2.5% is very much not a ceiling but just a floor?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful question. We are committed to the 2.5% and he knows the policy, which I have laid out on many occasions. The important point that I am trying to make with respect to the noble Baroness’s Question is that air defence will have to play an important part in our defence in the future, whatever level of budget we arrive at.

Drones: RAF Bases

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his question. He is quite right with respect to the National Security Act. Let us be clear, in various pieces of legislation, not just the National Security Act, it is illegal for drones to be flown over or in the vicinity of these military sites. People should be aware of that, and local communities should be reassured. In terms of national security, the same Act that he and I passed under the last Government ensures that there are penalties of up to 14 years for this sort of activity, and people should be aware of that. All agencies and parts of the state will work to ensure that we identify and do what we can with those who are conducting these acts.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I might build on the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, if I may—or not.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is this side. I refer to my interests in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. I too wanted to follow up the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is a widespread issue. Drones are comparatively cheap; they are easy to mobilise; they can be used, potentially, with an explosive or chemical or even a radiological payload; and they can be used for hostile surveillance. There are all sorts of uses, not just by hostile nations, but by criminal gangs and terrorists and so on.

This is not just a question for national defence against national defence assets, but it must be a question of the police around the country having the appropriate equipment and facilities. Can the Minister reassure us that we are going to have that country-wide, whole-of-government response to the threat from drones, which, as we have seen in other countries, can be extensive?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. The defence review will address national resilience. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has also said, of course air defence means missiles and other things in the conventional way in which we interpret that term. It also includes being able to deal with low- tech mass efficiently and cost effectively. Clearly, we will need to address that—and we will—as the hybrid threat and the low-cost, low-technology threat will be part of the warfare of the future.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The Minister has outlined some of the challenges that we face but there is a bigger issue here. Under Article 3 of our NATO treaty, we have an obligation to deliver national resilience in the UK. It is not just about the air threat—it is about guarding critical national infrastructure, not just military bases but power stations. We have not done this en masse for a very long time, and, like other noble Lords, I simply seek reassurance that we are thinking about this in the SDR because the manpower required is significant. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does as director of the Army Reserve. On national resilience, the threats and warfare of the future have been shown from Ukraine and elsewhere. It is not just tanks, it is not just aircraft—it is about national resilience to withstand hybrid attack, such as attacks on information and our critical national infrastructure. The ability to defend against physical and cyberattack is crucial to withstanding the threats that we will face in the future. That has to be a part of any future defence review, and it will be. Without it, we will leave our country weaker than it should be in the face of such threats.

Ministry of Defence: Expenditure

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Of course we should remain open to any capability that is necessary. The noble and gallant Lord makes a very important point. We are open to all these considerations and factors in the defence of Ukraine, but also in the wider security picture that we face across the globe. No doubt that will be something that the review takes forward. I would welcome the noble and gallant Lord’s contribution to that review, to make the very point that he has just made.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. The Public Accounts Committee identified a black hole of some £16.9 billion in our capital programme. That sounds a lot, but over 10 years it is actually less than 5% of the programme and manageable. However, as night follows day, there will be deferrals or cancellations of capital projects within the MoD. Normally, it is the smaller, short-term projects that are deferred or cancelled, as opposed to larger, long-term projects. In order to meet the Chief of the General Staff’s aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army in the next three years, it is these very short-term, small projects that are required. When it comes to the balance of investments, will this desire be taken into account?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for all the work he does in his position outside this House. He makes an important point. For me, it is not whether it is a small capital project or a large capital project; the important point is how it contributes to the lethality of our forces and how it contributes to us defending not only our country but freedom and democracy across the world. Whether it is a small project, a medium-sized project or a large project, its utility should be decided on that basis. The noble Lord makes a very important point, and I will make sure it is taken into consideration.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I first raised the subject of Amendments 14 and 15 in my name at Second Reading. I hope they will prove uncontroversial. Indeed, to pick up on the conversation we have had over the last few groupings, all these amendments seek to do is effectively to support the Government in what they are already doing and, equally, to try to embolden a committee to deliver the Armed Forces covenant. I shall be very brief.

Specifically, the amendment enables the Secretary of State to extend the statutory functions of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, VAPCs. They are regional statutory committees—nine in England, two in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland—established by a statutory instrument made under Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989. Each committee has between 12 and 20 members, who are all volunteers. They are public appointees who act independently of their sponsoring department, the MoD, and so provide evidence and views from that independent standpoint. During my time as Minister for Veterans, I felt that as a body they played a valuable role, both as advocates on behalf of the MoD and as a source of candid advice to me as a Minister and to the wider veteran community.

However, the issue is that the enabling power limits the statutory functions that can be given to VAPCs solely to functions relating to the compensation schemes for veterans and their families, namely the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation schemes, and as such are mandated to engage with only a relatively small part of the veteran community and not the Armed Forces covenant in general.

As we seek to improve the implementation of the Armed Forces covenant, it strikes me that, through their independent approach and regional structure, the members of the VAPCs are well placed to make a useful contribution to the Government’s drive to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. Indeed, just one aspect of this drive is the implementation of the duty introduced by Clause 8(3) of the Bill to have due regard to the principles of and relating to the Armed Forces covenant. In my view, at least, this is not only timely but long overdue.

Interestingly, we have in all honesty been talking about expanding VAPC powers for some time. As I recall, it was a proposed amendment put to me as a Minister when I was responsible for taking the last Armed Forces Bill through Parliament five years ago, but due to lack of preparation time was ultimately not included. We really have been talking about this for a very long time.

It is also an argument that has already in part been conceded by the Government, by their agreeing in principle that members of each regional VAPC be invited by terms of reference to join parallel informal regional groups to perform functions relating to all veterans. This is exactly what this amendment is trying to do, and they are proposing to do it. We even now have a position in which the Government are actively advertising the role of membership of VAPCs as extending beyond the original statutory functions. I have sent this to the Minister. I was rather surprised to discover that on the public appointments website, dating back over four years—the current appointments are equally advertised—the principal role for the chair of the south-east England VAPC, the first role it describes as being required, is to

“act as advocates for implementing the Armed Forces Covenant and associated measures at a local level”,

even though at this point it was not mandated within the statutory requirements. They have already been advertising it, so it seems logical that we should enshrine it in this legislation.

To be fair, this amendment is carefully crafted to ensure that it ties in with the Government’s intent to review the interim solution that they are proposing for the function of VAPCs after one year, after which it will enable the Secretary of State to give VAPCs functions relating to all veterans only if it should be concluded after that review that this is potentially the best way to maximise their contribution to helping support the Armed Forces community.

My plea to the Minister is simple. The Government have accepted in principle that the role of the VAPCs should be expanded by delivering this interim solution. The Government are even actively advertising it as an expanded role. All that these modest amendments would do is put in place the ability for the Secretary of State—if, and only if, he so wishes—to make that change after the review period rather than having to wait yet another five years for the next Armed Forces Bill.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am generally supportive of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. He very ably made the point why the time to act is now rather than waiting a further five years before something is done. I very much hope the Minister can respond positively to what I think is a very sensible amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Lady rightly highlights the important contribution that the north-east and the north-west have made to recruitment to all three services over many years. I am determined that our armed forces should reflect modern Britain, which is why we are trying to encourage more members from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities to join the armed forces and, equally, more women—currently we are achieving 7.3% for the former and 12.2% for the latter. Last year we saw a decent pay increase of some 2.9%, and we continue to invest an awful lot of money in improving accommodation standards for our armed forces.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

May I first declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon be going on active deployment with the reserves? I also wish to point out the magnificent contribution made by the Carlton reserve base in my constituency. I want to ask the Minister a simple but really important question. The reserves are a crucial part of our armed forces—I know he knows that—but there are really significant problems in recruiting and retaining reserve personnel and integrating them into our armed forces, so can he say a little more about what the Government are doing about that?

[Mark Lancaster]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. It will come as no surprise to him that, having been a serving member of the reserves for 31 years, I take reserve service very seriously. I think that maintaining that offer is absolutely key, which is one of the reasons why I have imposed a target to ensure that at least 5% of our reserve community have the opportunity to go on operations, as his son-in-law is doing. It is that offer that is so key.

Carrier Strike Strategy

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Thursday 28th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, which does such excellent work and produces such outstanding reports, helping to defend our country and the broader alliance to which we belong. I congratulate the hon. Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on their contribution to bringing the debate about.

I, like the Select Committee Chair, have been struck by the unanimity of views expressed and the power of the comments made in the debate. I particularly wanted to take part because, as everyone knows, I am a big supporter of defence and of increased expenditure, but also because I have a sense of frustration, although not with the Ministry of Defence. I feel frustration with our country and with Government as a whole, given the number of debates I have taken part in where Members have said it is crucial that defence and foreign policy objectives, and international development objectives, should be married together. I want the Minister to take that point away; but this cannot be another of those debates where we say such things and, a year later, the right hon. Member for New Forest East gives another report, and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed or, indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) make another outstanding speech explaining that foreign policy objectives must be linked to defence objectives. That is what happens. I am doing no more than expressing my opinion about what is happening, and that is the subject of my contribution.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, so may I draw his attention, as an example of what he is asking for, to the recently published Africa strategy? That is a cross-Government strategy drawing together strategies from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. That is exactly what is happening.

[Vernon Coaker]

I accept that that has been published, but I want to say something further to the point that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made, about the UK citizen. My point—and this shows how much work has to be done—is that, as the Defence Committee Chair said, on 11 February the Secretary of State for Defence makes a speech about where the new aircraft carrier will go on its first operational tour, and then a trip by the Chancellor to China is cancelled. Then a furious row erupts, apparently. If that is wrong, it is wrong, but that is what was reported. Somehow or other we have to have an approach where we do not have a row about it and the whole blame goes to the Chinese for refusing to accept that we have a perfect right for our aircraft carriers to go where we want. Instead, it became “Well, yes, the Chinese shouldn’t have done that”—but why are we worrying about it as well?

I have a broader point to make. It is not only about the need to win the debate and the argument in Government. The Chair of the Defence Committee has made the argument time and again, and so have the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who speaks for the Scottish National party. Where on earth is the engagement with the UK public? My constituents would see massive spending on tackling the terrorist threat as something to pile money into. The debate about whether we should spend billions of pounds on aircraft carriers is a totally different concept for them: why should we be spending that money? I agree with spending it, but have we won that debate with the British public? I very much doubt it. I would say that there is a need, with respect to Russia and China. On the middle east, people might get it, although they could say “You can already bomb the middle east from Akrotiri if you want to, so why do we have them?” Hon. Members have articulated the argument.

Norway has been mentioned. I had the privilege of visiting the Falklands last week, with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Our defence of the self-determination of the Falkland Islands is absolutely something of which we can all be proud. We do so much more, but who talks about that? HMS Clyde is there as a projection of naval power—I did not much enjoy being on it myself, but they do a phenomenal job—but it is not there only in defence of the Falklands. It is also there to patrol the waters near the South Sandwich Islands and South Georgia, and to defend the Antarctic treaty, fishing rights and other things that some other nations exploit—or would if we were not there.

That is a role for naval power, but who articulates that in a practical way to UK citizens so that they understand? It is not just the Government who need to wake up to that, but the whole of Parliament as well, so the matter is addressed much more fully.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I shall give way one more time and then I must make progress.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. May I take him back to his comment about military salaries rising in real terms? Can he explain to the House why the Ministry of Defence publication of 1 September 2017 states:

“Fig. 11 highlights that growth in military salaries fell below inflation from financial year 2010/11 to 2014/15.”?

Will he source where his evidence is coming from, as opposed to the evidence that the rest of us are having to rely on, which is taken from the MOD’s own website?

[Mark Lancaster]

We are going back—are we not?—to the debate about the annual salary increase and incremental pay. I have always used the example of the private soldier, where we see almost a 20% salary increase over three years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and Lord Coaker

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I would be delighted to do so.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Defence Secretary had with the US Government about the announcement over the weekend of the deployment of hundreds of US marines to northern Syria, what their purpose is and what co-operation will take place between us and the Americans with respect to that deployment?