Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

I do not know whether the Minister is inclined to look with favour on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. However, I ask him—in his response and, subsequently, as the Bill goes through—to reflect on that point and to share with us the thoughts within the Ministry of Defence on how it will take this issue forward. As he and I have discussed and agreed, what really matters is changing behaviour on the ground. We have been singularly poor at doing that over many years, but that is what we need to change.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I will speak briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

The German armed forces commissioner and her activities—on whose role, to a large degree, this new UK version is based—are covered by a country-wide whistleblowing Act, which was passed, I think, about three years ago. Looking at the example of Jaysley Beck, and trying to disentangle the long and unfortunate history of the way she was treated almost from the time she joined the Army Foundation College, would identify a whole series of points at which the whistle could have been blown in some way, shape or form but, for whatever reason, was not. This is not a case of a single occasion that was missed; there were multiple occasions involving a wide range of people, many of whom were old enough and senior enough to know better, and who, for whatever reason, did not take action.

There are elements of human behaviour and psychology at play, including the way in which an organisation—which has huge pride in its history—reacts when it sees that the way it likes the outside world to believe it behaves, and how it holds its values, is not in fact the case. It is not always straightforward to work out exactly how to deal with that and how to flag up what is going on without being seen to be disloyal and without, in some way, being seen to be disrupting the organisation. Even if you feel that some of the values being demonstrated by the actual behaviour are wrong, they are almost trumped by the other values that one feels are more important, which are probably those that are discussed. The values that have gone wrong are the ones that are not being discussed or flagged up. That seems to be a root cause of why people are not coming forward and not talking.

This is an important area. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is not the office that will look after this, who on earth will be? Who will defend the young girls like Jaysley Beck of the future—and, probably, of today? We need to get this right. I think that we would all welcome detailed discussions between now and Report, probably involving outside organisations that have been talking to some of the people who have suffered and who have not found ways of telling the chain of command or the outside world, in a way that was heard, what was going on. We really need to use the occasion of this Bill to try to get this right.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have.

Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable.

I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances.

The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do.

I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward.

There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour.

Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change.

As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service.

Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward.

The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information.

On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important.

It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that.

I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarification. That is what I had assumed on reading the Bill, but I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely right.

The Minister has pre-empted Amendment 21 in some ways. It is simply a request for some clarification on the timeframe. We say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should publish an agreed timetable within one month. I suspect the Minister might find a reason why that should not be the case, but can we have a little more clarification on the timeframe? Will it depend on the individual appointed, or are His Majesty’s Government committed to the commissioner being in post on, say, 1 January 2026?

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, to which I have added my name. We spent quite a lot of time during Second Reading and—I just checked—the first part of the Minister’s response from the Front Bench on the question of what difference this will make. I think all noble Lords who took part at Second Reading agreed that that is the essence. To that extent, Amendment 3 is quite important, because it goes to the heart of the question of what difference it will make.

The reason why the German system works the way it does is that the German armed forces commissioner is very clearly the servant of the Bundestag; he or she sits in the Bundestag alongside the clerks and, indeed, if the Bundestag wishes it to happen, it can request that the armed forces commissioner can participate actively in debates around the armed forces in the Chamber. So it is a very different model, and it really does make a difference, because it is markedly different from what we are suggesting.

This is the third attempt by us to try to get a form of ombudsman or Armed Forces commissioner to be more effective. We had the first one in 2008, the second iteration in 2016, and this is the third bite of the cherry to try to get it right. Clearly, if this is the third time we are doing it, it ain’t that simple. For all sorts of excellent reasons, the Armed Forces are a very particular culture and ecosystem, which they need to be to do what they do, but the flip side of having a really effective and disciplined military is that, for all sorts of reasons that it may not completely understand itself, it may be quite resistant to attempts that it sees as coming from outside—from people who do not really understand the culture and history and the things that are so important. The things that are not said are often more important than the things that are said.

The problem is that, at the moment, some of us feel that, while this is very well intended, it is very cautious indeed. For the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence to retain as much ownership and control of this as will inevitably be the case is unlikely to make the sort of step change that I think a lot of us were hoping and aspiring to believe this new role could actually make. I think that this needs to be looked at—it is a probing amendment—and I ask the Minister and his colleagues to look very carefully.

As part of my research for this proposal, I asked an individual who is actively involved in teaching in Shrivenham to take a poll after talking to a few people about this Bill. The first thing that this person found was that almost everybody spoken to in Shrivenham—this was last week—was not actually aware of this Bill. I do not know how well publicised this Bill is within the Armed Forces, but you would expect and hope that the flagship or leadership organisations of the Armed Forces would be aware of it and indeed might even perhaps been talking about it a bit. However, apparently this was not the case—but this was not a professional Sir John Curtice-type opinion poll but just somebody going around and talking to other people at Shrivenham.

The other experience that this individual had, after a brief explanation of what this role was going to be, was an almost immediate response from everybody; people felt that what they described as the “rigidity”, with a small “R”, of the armed services culture would find it pretty easy to resist the type of role that is being envisaged.

The bottom line is whether this is going to make a difference. It is important to be able to step back from this Bill and perhaps to take some more soundings from within the Armed Forces just to try to understand how likely they feel this will make a real difference. One senses that the onus of this Bill is coming primarily from the Ministry of Defence itself, and there is slightly less pull, if you like, from those parts within the Armed Forces and the extended family members that we were talking about. I am not sure how clearly their voices and experiences are being heard, because what we have at the moment clearly is not working.

I shall move quickly to Amendment 5 and term of office. The German term of office is five years. It can be renewed; it usually has not been renewed. Almost every time a new commissioner is appointed in Germany, it is an ex-Member of Parliament—usually an ex-member of the defence committee that is the equivalent of our Defence Select Committee. So they come with some live experience and with a network within Parliament that they are easily able to access; they can be quite influential behind the scenes. That system works well but, again, I come back to what we asked earlier: will this measure make a difference?

The aspiration is that this new role will make a discernible difference. In order for it to do that, clearly, it needs to do a lot of things differently to the way in which things have been done to date; and to find an effective way of doing things differently that works better. One will not get it right first time every time. It will be an iterative process: there will be successes, failures, brick walls and elephant traps. All sorts of things will be happening. Building up the types of resource and knowledge that will be required to gain momentum to carry this new role forward into the term of whoever follows the first commissioner will require giving the first commissioner the leeway and resources to make a difference.

I just feel that things are a bit timid at the moment. If we focus on the complexity of the task that we are asking this new function to do—in particular, if we try to think, “What should this look like 10 years from now? What do we hope would be happening? How would this be working?”—and know both where we want to get to and where we are now, we can then gauge the complexity of the task of getting from A to B. That might result in looking at some of these aspects in a slightly different, perhaps more beneficial, way.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3, not because I agree with it but because I agree very strongly with it. When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill, I remember him saying—quite rightly—that one of the important aspects of this Bill is that it puts this commissioner on a statutory footing. He was referring to the fact that he wanted this new post to have the weight of statute behind her or him. I simply support Amendment 3—if I refer to it again, I shall say “very, very strongly”—because it would give this post the authority of Parliament, in addition to being in statute, which would be a very good thing.

I am interested in everything said by people who know far more than I do about the German system but, clearly, that is not particularly appropriate to a British political setting. Amendment 3, however, is absolutely perfectly suited to our political system. I know that, sadly, Governments do not tend to like amendments such as Amendment 3. If I were on the other side of the Room, I dare say my noble friend might have been arguing for Amendment 3. I understand that, in his current ministerial position, he may be guided by the officials behind him and say, “Well, it is too complicated”, but it is not complicated at all. It is a question of whether Parliament should be involved, which it should be. This is a major new post that we are creating. The process of confirming the appointment of whoever is put forward is something that Parliament should do. Incidentally, it is not just because Amendment 3 applies to this particular Bill; I would support Amendment 3 in every piece of legislation where this type of question arises.

That is all I have to say on this matter. I do hope that, when he replies, my noble friend the Minister will at least acknowledge the, I would say, widespread feeling that Parliament must be involved in the appointment of this person; and convey it internally to his colleagues in the Government who would be resistant to an amendment of this kind. When it comes to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, I try always to be on the side of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without saying whether that is a good or a bad idea, what I have said is that—although this is not actually in the Bill, as my noble friend said—clearly, our view is that going through the Defence Committee is the appropriate parliamentary involvement. We have said that we can consider the points that have been made in Committee, and I have said that we can meet to discuss them. Alongside that, we can discuss the length of term.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will recall that, in the last few years, there has been a degree of disquiet, particularly on his Benches, about the view that certain appointments that should have gone through a fairly balanced process have veered slightly off course due to political interference. It just so happens that, about three hours ago, I was talking with a distinguished Cross-Bench colleague who is currently involved in two very senior independent appointments, helping the Government. This colleague had a discernible frustration that, in both of these cases—which are completely current and took place last week—a ministerial colleague of the Minister, not in the same department, overruled the recommendations of the advisory panel on who should be appointed or who the best candidates were. A completely different individual has been inserted from outside.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord is that we believe that the appropriate way for Parliament to be involved is through the Defence Select Committee. I have heard the points that noble Lords have made with respect to that. The appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the full public appointments process, overseen by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so we would expect it to be a rigorous and open recruitment process. We expect the Defence Committee to be involved in the recruitment process and to consider the appointment once it has been made. Of course, the Secretary of State is ultimately the final decision-maker, but, as the noble Lord said, he will carefully consider what the chair of the House of Commons Select Committee says.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I point out to the Minister that the two processes that I was talking about were run under precisely the rules that he has just laid out.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

When I saw Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I put my name down in addition to his because of what I am holding in my hand: a fact sheet that was given to us at the very helpful briefing given by the Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I will read from the fact sheet; I ask your Lordships to look for the word “may”, because I cannot find it. It says:

“Although funding for the Commissioner will be provided for from the MoD budget, the Bill contains several safeguards to ensure the Commissioner can operate independently of government”.


It says “will” instead of “may”; that is on the fact sheet. I say this to whoever prepared it; it may have been one of the gentlemen or ladies behind the Minister. A slip of the verb may have produced it, but it does say “will”.

We were talking in the previous group about allowing Parliament to have more ownership of, and more skin in the game with, this new role. Can I just suggest as an idea that, on an annual basis, the Defence Select Committee of another place has a session devoted to talking to the Armed Forces commissioner about the work that he or she is undertaking? In addition, I suggest that, on an annual basis, there should be a session held with the commissioner in camera specifically to discuss funding, resourcing and some of the issues that one may not necessarily wish to be aired in the public domain but which could be shared on a confidential basis with members of the Select Committee.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The Government set great store by the independence of the commissioner. We all agree that that is vital, yet this amendment is necessary because the possibility is left open that it will not be properly funded. I find that remarkable. As my noble friend said in moving his amendment, this would detract from the independence of the commissioner.

I do not see why the Government should be allowed to say that they are fully committed to this new post and to giving it the resources that it needs—this was on the fact sheet, which I also picked up; I should have brought it with me—while, at the same time, they will not guarantee this funding in the Bill, which will become an Act. That is all I have to say. I am afraid that I cannot quite imagine what my noble friend the Minister will say in response because this is so clearly something that will set in stone the importance of the work and independence of the commissioner.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Bill. The reason that I am standing here talking is partly thanks to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was the person who suggested that I should immediately go and take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme when I sent him an email about it. For the last two years, I have had the privilege of graduating in the Army scheme and then the Navy scheme. Just over a year ago, I was with the Royal Marines in the Arctic, which is extremely relevant and useful training for the temperature in the Chamber this evening.

The second reason is because of the late and much-lamented Baroness Massey of Darwen. The Minister may remember, because he was speaking for the Opposition, a Bill when we talked about the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. I suspect that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was referring to. The Army Foundation College is a good example of an issue that is systemic and thematic; some of the recent cases, over the last 10 years, are pretty harrowing. They have continued for a long time and will continue into the future until and unless someone such as the new Armed Forces commissioner grabs hold of it and does something about it.

The German model that we are following is a good one, but it has been around for a long time. For reasons that I think we can all understand, it was set up in 1959 in the wake of the devastation created by the German armed forces and the need to completely rebuild them from the bottom up. By contrast, today we are talking about the third iteration of us trying to find something similar to what the Germans have. We started this only in 2008, so we are rather late to the party. I think we are playing catch-up. The evidence is in the key recommendations of the German armed forces commissioner in her last report. The areas that she focused on were personnel shortages and operational readiness; ageing equipment; recruitment and retention; bureaucratic challenges; and mental health and welfare.

Those areas are an interesting contrast with the last report of our current commissioner, because the German ones were to some extent looking at the problems of today, but in looking at issues such as personnel shortages, operational readiness and ageing equipment, they were actually looking to the future. Look, by contrast, at what the last commissioner here said in 2022: it was about the system. It was about efficiency and fairness, resolution time, system improvements and performance metrics. Lastly, it was about bullying, harassment and discrimination.

A lot of the effort of the current commissioner has been simply to get the system working because it is not working. The Germans have a system—as one might expect—that does work, but they have about 70 years on us in terms of getting it going. We need to effect change quickly.

In visiting the Army and the Navy in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, one is very impressed, and almost overwhelmed, by the range of regimental silver, flags, plaques and paintings. I have never had so many photos taken of me in my life. There is an understandable fierce pride in the past, but I sometimes wonder whether the pride in the past and the retelling of the great stories of the past in some ways stop us thinking as much as we should about the future. That is a cultural issue which the Armed Forces need to deal with.

I have a series of questions for the Minister which I do not expect him to be able to answer, brilliant though he is. First, because we are in catch-up mode—other noble Lords referred to this—will the funding and the staffing be adequate for the scale of the task, given how much the current commissioner is focusing on getting the system working, let alone dealing with the complaints coming in? The Germans have 60 staff, the current commissioner here has 26. We may initially, for a two- or three-year period, need significantly more than that simply to get traction and to get the basics right.

Leadership is key. I know the commissioner cannot be a regular, a reserve or a civil servant. If you look at the example of the German commissioner, she is a lawyer, and she was for 11 years a Bundestag deputy—a very senior one. When she was appointed, immediately after she stepped down from being a deputy, elected by a large majority of the Bundestag, she was able to hit the ground running. She has strong relationships and knowledge within the parliament, which have been enormously helpful. I hope that will be taken into account when thought is given to the type of person we are looking for: we need somebody who really knows what they are doing.

The Armed Forces, like many an institution with more history than is good for it, can be quite defensive culturally—for completely understandable reasons. Might it be possible, or even necessary, for the commissioner to have ex-members of the Armed Forces as his or her staff, or even that one could appoint people on secondment into the office, denoting that you are high potential, that you are going places, and that spending a period in the commissioner’s office is a big plus and is an important part of your development?

Next, given the issues around bullying, harassment, discrimination, violence against women and girls, and mental health, it is unreasonable to expect that the commissioner will have the right level of expertise and experience to deal with these issues in-house. We mentioned this and discussed this in the very helpful briefing the Minister gave last week. I appeal to the Ministry of Defence to think about the commissioner developing relationships with a variety of organisations that have this expertise, so that they can access it very quickly as and when they need it, rather than thinking when something comes up, “Oh, where do I go for help?”

Lastly, on the issue of entry to premises, it is crystal clear that the German armed forces commissioner has carte blanche to go wherever in the world she wishes with no advance notice whatever being given to the armed forces; such is the level of trust, that works. Could we not do the same here?

Relations with Europe

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus my speech on the Council of Europe. I suspect I am preaching to the converted because the Minister and I actually met as joint members of the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe in 2018. Since then, I have had the privilege of being the lone Cross-Bench non-political member of the parliamentary assembly.

I would describe the last six and a half years as witnessing a state of not particularly benign neglect by previous Governments, and I think that there is now a chance for a real reset. We were a founding member of the Council of Europe in 1949. We are one of the four “grand payeurs”, those who pay the most money into the organisation, together with France, Germany and Italy. We have an excellent track record in front of the European Court of Human Rights, despite whatever at least one of the contenders for the leadership of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition appears to believe.

However, we have had a very limited focus and attention from previous Governments on our membership. There has been what I would describe as a somewhat indiscriminate choice of members. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, at the time I joined most of them were chosen because they were not supporters of the then leader of the Labour Party, and it was a convenient way of getting them out of Westminster for certain weeks during the year. In my experience, the majority of MPs who are on the parliamentary assembly, from whichever party, have little interest and rarely even bother to come or participate. If they do wish to do so, it is particularly disappointing when, in my experience, the Whips in another place do not give people slips to go and do their duty in the parliamentary assembly.

The Council of Europe gives us a real opportunity to exercise a high degree of soft power rather effectively. Most of the key elements are not well known. The European Court of Human Rights is well known, as is perhaps the council’s support for Ukraine, but it is also the repository of about 200 or more conventions on a whole variety of areas, excluding defence. These include cybercrime and anti-money laundering—I suspect these are subjects close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, and she would be a very welcome member of the parliamentary assembly if she was chosen by her party. It covers artificial intelligence, anti-doping in sport, anti-corruption, prevention of torture, data protection, criminal law co-operation, the quality of medicines and avoiding counterfeit medicines, the environment, the protection of wildlife and habitats, human rights and, of course, the Istanbul convention.

My plea to the new Government is: for goodness’ sake, please take the Council of Europe seriously. We should be extremely proud of having been a founder and we really should take it more seriously. I appeal to the Minister to tell the Chief Whips in both Houses—Sir Alan Campbell in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in this House—the Minister for Europe, Stephen Doughty, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, and the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who is in this House, that we need a complete and utter reset. We need quality people on the parliamentary assembly and, from the party in office, really strong leadership, not dissimilar to the leadership Sir Roger Gale gave very effectively prior to 2019.

I end with a tribute to those in Strasbourg, our ambassador Sandy Moss and his outstanding team, who support and give the United Kingdom a voice probably beyond the degree of input that we give it. I also pay tribute to Nick Wright and his team here in Whitehall, who enable us to take part so effectively.