Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Wrottesley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I will say very briefly that I support Amendment 3, but I have some reservations about Amendment 4, mainly because of its length and its attempt to dot a lot of “i”s and cross a lot of “t”s. At the back of my mind all the time when we are discussing this Bill is that the Armed Forces Act is more than 500 pages long, and this will add to that. It becomes a nonsense to have an Act of Parliament of such complexity and such an attempt to deal with every conceivable possibility affecting the Armed Forces. It arises, of course, because the three single-service Acts were pulled together in 2006. It has produced a monstrosity, so where we can avoid adding detail to the Armed Forces Act by this Bill, we should jolly well try to do so.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments of and comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others. In doing so, I declare an interest in having previously served as a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.

Much has been made by His Majesty’s Government and other noble Lords of the attributes of the German model. A key feature of this model is its direct connection with and therefore accountability to Parliament. However, the Minister has previously stated that he feels that there is increased independence with the commissioner sitting outside Parliament—accountable to but independent of Parliament. There is a tension within these phrases that may be irreconcilable. We would all be keen to hear the Minister’s views on how to reconcile these tensions, which may even be contradictions.

I also support the comments made on term limits. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about a limit of five years plus two for a total of seven years. In the corporate world, term limits often extend to two terms of four years, for a total of eight years, or three terms of three years, for a total of nine years. One of their key attributes is to allow for continuity and the retention of corporate memory, which still allows for a refresh and therefore introduces new experience into the mix within what is deemed an appropriate timeframe. I would like to hear from the Minister on why he feels seven years is an appropriate timeframe, as opposed to eight, nine or, as in this case, 10 years.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the very interesting amendments under consideration in this group all seek to push the Government on the terms of appointment of the commissioner. This is always one of the seminal issues when we debate the establishment of a new position in law. Amendment 3 appears—the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, can elaborate on this in his closing remarks—to interfere with the principle of exclusive cognisance. His amendment insinuates that Parliament must hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, creates a mechanism for appointment similar, as has been mentioned, to the committee system in the United States. Their congressional committees are required to hold confirmatory hearings and votes, and they have the power to decline a president their appointments. I am not certain how such a system could be translated into our particular constitutional model, but I am again quite intrigued to find out.

Finally, on Amendment 5, I too think there is merit in this proposal, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. If the particular commissioner is successful and executes their duties effectively, why should they not be able to hold that appointment for two full terms of five years? You would get a proper continuation as a result of a slightly extended period. I do not quite understand the two-year extension; it seems neither one thing nor the other. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendments 11 and 12. It would be impossible to argue that the commissioner should not support the interests of women and minority groups, but I am not sure that this level of prescription, particularly in Amendment 11, serves the Bill well. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, about the volume of work that the commissioner will already inherit from the ombudsman, and there will be a lot of work on top of that.

I am a founder member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, so I obviously would want every public office to bear in mind and have due regard to the interests of those who have protected characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the public sector equality duty, so that takes care of that aspect of their work. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may come back to me and say that that does not necessarily guarantee that the level of focus that she would rightly like to see paid to the problems that some minority groups experience in their armed service life will be fully taken care of in the way that she would want from this amendment.

But my general point in arguing that the amendment may not sit well in the Bill is that one of the perennial themes of debate on the Bill, both here and in the other place, has been the much-welcomed independence of the Armed Forces commissioner. Independence implies a degree of freedom, discretion and flexibility. Therefore, it does not fit well with that level of independence to prescribe how that particular function would be carried out in such detail, in the way that this amendment does.

I have seen a lot of equality and diversity programmes that specify a lot of detail. The end result has been that, when it comes to the end of the year and the prescribed annual report is published, it is little more than a tick-box exercise, and we would not want that to be the consequence of an amendment like this. For that reason, I reluctantly find myself unable to support these two amendments.

[Lord Wrottesley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 8 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. The express intention of the Bill is to support those serving in His Majesty’s Armed Forces. There is no doubt that VAT on school fees will have an adverse impact on services families, who will more than likely find themselves serving overseas at some point in their careers, sometimes on multiple occasions, maybe as they start a family. A 20% increase in the cost of educating their children is absolutely a welfare issue, but it is equally a recruitment and retention issue.

As we have heard from the noble Lords tabling these amendments, families serving abroad rely on the stability that boarding schools provide—largely independent and private schools, but also schools from the state sector. The decision of a family, or in this case an individual, to start or continue to serve in His Majesty’s Armed Forces—after all, they are likely to be not particularly well paid, compared to their equivalents in other areas of public service, let alone in the private sector—will often rely on the add-ons and the benefits offered as a result of their serving as a member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. As with SEND children, given that there are concerns that any proposed top-ups may not fully compensate the additional costs of VAT on school fees, why are we not going to exempt members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces from this additional financial burden? It may—I suggest that it will—dissuade people from starting or even going on to build a career in the Armed Forces.