Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

No one could argue with the honourable intent of the Bill: to improve service life. That is why there is widespread support for its main proposal, an enhanced role with new investigative powers. The Service Complaints Ombudsman and her predecessor have both called for powers along those very lines. This was a commitment in the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I stood for election.

The Defence Committee published a letter last Thursday setting out our initial thoughts on the Bill, to inform the House’s scrutiny today. We had hoped to have time to take account of the views of representatives of armed forces communities, as well as the Service Complaints Ombudsman, but the pace of events made that impossible. As a result, at this stage, my remarks contain more questions than conclusions.

If the Government are to be judged by their own success criteria, the two key questions for the House are these. First, how far will the Bill go towards improving service life? Secondly, is the commissioner established by the Bill given the right powers, protections and resources to act as the strong, independent champion that our gallant armed forces and their families deserve, and that the Government have promised?

On behalf of the Defence Committee, I ask the Minister for the Armed Forces to address in his winding-up speech the points that we raised in our letter, in addition to those that the Defence Secretary outlined earlier. What are the Government’s priorities for improving the service complaints system? It is striking that the Bill contains only one change to the system, when successive ombudsmen have found that the system as a whole is not efficient, effective and fair. To bring the Bill to life, can the Minister draw to the House’s attention examples of times when the power to conduct investigations on general service matters would have improved service life, if it had existed at that time?

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify, as far as possible, who will be able to ask the commissioner, under clause 4, to investigate a “general welfare service matter”. Will that include members of the reserve forces, family members of reservists, former partners and spouses of serving personnel, and—the Secretary of State has, thankfully, already provided clarification on this—bereaved service families? This is a matter of interest and concern to representatives of armed forces communities such as the Royal British Legion.

The independence of the commissioner will be crucial in maintaining the confidence and trust of the armed forces community.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. May I tempt him to agree with me that the Armed Forces Commissioner should have his or her powers extended to veterans, on the grounds that a lot of the themes that he or she would look at would be hybrid matters that affected both the veterans community and those currently serving? At the risk of being accused of being a one-trick pony, may I suggest that the Camp Lejeune case exemplifies that point?

[Mr Dhesi]

I would never accuse my right hon. Friend of being a one-trick pony. He tempts me, but I would like to consider that point about veterans, reserve forces and so on in Committee and thereafter.

The German armed forces commissioner—the inspiration behind the Bill, as the Secretary of State highlighted—is entirely independent of the German Defence Ministry and armed forces, but that is not the case for the commissioner under the Bill. The Secretary of State will appoint and be able to dismiss. The Secretary of State will fund the commissioner and agree their staffing arrangements—I am very grateful to the Minister for his briefing this morning at the Ministry of Defence, at which I was able to highlight some of my initial concerns—and the Secretary of State will be able to constrain the exercise of the commissioner’s powers on broad grounds of national security and personal safety. So when Ministers describe the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner as independent, they must surely mean something else. Can my hon. Friend the Minister explain exactly what? And can he tell us why he has not decided to go further in ensuring the independence of the commissioner from his Department? Can he also explain how the commissioner’s resourcing requirements have been estimated, what the process would be if the commissioner asked for additional resources, and who would find out and how if the commissioner was denied resources they had requested?

The Bill arrives during a crisis in armed forces recruitment and retention, at a time when there are high levels of dissatisfaction with service life, and an unacceptable level of inappropriate behaviour in the armed forces. The Defence Committee will be delving into that in greater detail. The Bill cannot solve those challenges on its own. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister exactly where the Bill sits within a coherent strategy and a set of broader measures, so that the House can consider the Bill in context.

Expectations of the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be high. They will need to be a strong character, with the best interests of the armed forces in mind. They will need to be prepared for questions and challenge, but also to understand, win support, and change hearts and minds. Their success will likely ultimately depend on the support and trust of the armed forces, including the chain of command. What kind of person do the Government imagine filling the role? How, if at all, will the key requirements of the role differ from those for the Service Complaints Ombudsman?

I appreciate that I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister, but he is a very capable individual and he has been taking copious notes. No doubt he will be able to answer all my questions in his speech. My Defence Committee colleagues and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention of allowing the Committee to conduct a non-binding pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the role. As the Secretary of State highlighted, that is in line with practice for the appointment of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The Defence Committee has always offered both support and scrutiny to the ombudsman, and we look forward to working closely with the new commissioner. They will, I hope, become a regular witness before the Committee. I hope that the Government will ensure the smoothest possible transition between the two roles.

Ukraine

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Our provision of munitions, in concert with others, is driven by the Ukrainian ask and our ability to deliver them. That was discussed at Ramstein and will be discussed further at Vilnius, subject to the second round of the international fund call that opened on 11 April. It is important to understand that a lot of that will be driven by the international fund’s executive panel. Obviously, it will listen closely to what President Zelensky and his advisers feel they need to repel this most awful invasion of his country. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to understand the true extent of what the UK has done. Not only has it led Europe in providing munitions and training, but it has provided the bulk of the £520 million that populates the UK-led international fund for Ukraine. That is a substantial achievement.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In the face of a Russian invasion, we must continue to support and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. But this war has exposed how the Conservative Government have underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over the last 13 years. Six months ago, we were told that we had 227 Challenger 2 tanks. Now the Minister for Armed Forces advises us that, with 14 in Ukraine, we have 157 deployable or deployed tanks. What has happened to the other 56?

[Dr Murrison]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, we committed to 148 Challenger 3 upgrades in the integrated review refresh. That remains our position. But if he is going to make a defence spending commitment on behalf of his party, I will be delighted to hear it—in particular how much more he would spend beyond what was announced in the spring Budget.