Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

13: Clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out from “proposal” to end of line 19 and insert “at least seven days before the Commissioner intends to exercise the power under subsection (1).”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State a minimum of seven days’ notice before entering service premises.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to join you all this afternoon on day two of Committee on the Bill. I should explain that last Wednesday, consideration of an important non-defence Bill in the Chamber precluded me from attending Grand Committee, so it is a particular pleasure to be able to be here this afternoon.

In speaking to Amendment 13, in my name, I will speak to the other amendments in the group. At Second Reading, I raised the extent to which, with reference to access to premises, powers seem to have leached away from the Secretary of State and transferred excessively to the commissioner. I am absolutely satisfied that this is for no malign reason at all—it is just a consequence of drafting. I was encouraged by other contributions at Second Reading that I had support for my concerns.

The amendments in my name, Amendments 13, 14 and 15, simply attempt to restore control to the Secretary of State. I freely admit that I may not have found the perfect solution to this, but I thought it would be helpful to have a debate, so that the noble Lord the Minister can understand the spectrum of views.

Without amendment, under the Bill the commissioner can, in the United Kingdom, access MoD premises without the Secretary of State being aware. That is not acceptable, and it raises two issues. As a matter of principle, is that really the position we want to put the Secretary of State for Defence into? Just think of the wide range of premises within the MoD, some at the top levels of security protection. Much more practically, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out at Second Reading, it is not only the location of the premises which matters but the activity taking place within them. As he observed, a base commander has overall responsibility for security, and I am afraid that entirely predictable is a clash of wills between the commissioner who seeks entry to a premises, and the base commander who says, “No, I am denying entry”. That is not sustainable.

My amendments may be clumsy, but I have restored power to the Secretary of State, who must have notice of intended access and must then inform the commanding officer of the relevant premises of the commissioner’s intended visit. I have provided for seven days’ notice, unless evidence is in danger of being lost or there is continuing risk to personnel using the premises. But in that event the commissioner must still intimate in writing to the Secretary of State why he is not giving notice; then, at least the Secretary of State will have some idea of what is going on.

The important lens through which to look at this is defence and security and the rightful overall authority of the Secretary of State, and I feel that the Bill has not got that balance quite right.

I look forward to the debate, and particularly to the response from the noble Lord the Minister, who may very well want to take away what he hears today and reflect upon these contributions. I beg to move.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I share the concern, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that lies behind the amendments, although these particular ones do not in fact capture, in my view, the solution to the problem.

The problem is that the nature of classified locations varies. There will be some sites to which the Armed Forces commissioner would not, presumably, be denied access entirely. However, many sites have large areas that will be, and should be, open to the commissioner, but within which there are particular discrete locations where classified activity is conducted, to which he or she should not be admitted.

The Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State may well draw up a list, as was intended, of classified locations. Although the list will be classified and therefore will not be in secondary legislation, as the Minister has pointed out, it will deny the commissioner access to those sites. But the problem with lists is that they are seldom comprehensive and seldom up to date. We are talking about a very large span of estate with a very large spread of activities. The idea that such a list can be kept up to the minute will involve, first, a huge bureaucratic effort and, secondly, will almost certainly be doomed to failure.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out, it is the responsibility of local commanders to ensure that national security is preserved and that classified information is not available to those who should not have access to it. Therefore, it seems to me that there is only one sensible answer to this conundrum: for the Bill to provide commanding officers with the power in the last resort to deny the commissioner access to specific locations on the grounds that they contain classified activities or classified material. The commanding officer should of course then be required to justify themselves through the chain of command to the Secretary of State. But if we do not provide them with that backstop authority, we are, frankly, hanging local commanders out to dry with the legislation as it now stands.

These amendments do not provide the solution that I see as necessary, but can the Minister undertake today to take away these very real and important concerns and consider how they might be addressed before we get to Report? I repeat what I have said earlier: I entirely understand that such conflicts are likely to be very rare. The commissioner is going to be engaged in looking at service accommodation and other general conditions of service, so most of the time they will not be seeking access to such sites. But it is entirely conceivable that he or she will need such access, particularly if they are considering thematic issues to do with working conditions—and just once is once too many when it comes to national security. I ask the Minister to reflect on this, and perhaps we can have some discussions outside Committee before we get to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”.


The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states:

“Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”—


this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made—

“if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”.

As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it.

I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful.

I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other.

Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it.

We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers.

In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence.

However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance.

We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage.

What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised.

I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into.

If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised?

I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

16: Clause 4, page 5, line 12, at end insert—
“340IC Commissioner’s functions in relation to whistleblowing(1) The Commissioner may investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower of which the Commissioner becomes aware (whether because the whistleblower has contacted the Commissioner or for any other reason) but only if the whistleblower informs the Commissioner, before the beginning of the investigation, that he or she consents to an investigation taking place.(2) In deciding whether to investigate, the Commissioner must take into account the public interest.(3) The Commissioner must, when carrying out an investigation under this section, take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower.(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is a “whistleblower” if—(a) the person is, or was at any time, subject to service law,(b) the person raises a concern that is about another person subject to service law, and(c) the matter to which the concern relates is not about the conditions of service of persons subject to service law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new whistleblowing duty for the Commissioner, to ensure service personnel can raise concerns with anonymity.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for putting his name to my Amendment 16.

At Second Reading, I expressed my concern about the position of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life in 2021. The coroner had recently published his findings, which made for grim reading. Since Jaysley’s death, many far-reaching changes and improvements have been made; I know that because the former Secretary of State Ben Wallace drove them through and, as a Minister, I supported him in every way I could. There is encouraging evidence that these changes are yielding results. For example, a number of instructors have been summarily dismissed for inappropriate sexual relationships with students, and I believe that there have been other dismissals of personnel from the Armed Forces for inappropriate behaviour.

What was always much more difficult to assess was whether women were fearful to make a complaint in the first place for fear of prejudicing their careers. All the procedures, processes and structures in the world do not work if a scared woman feels unable to make the complaint in the first place. That, sadly, was the case for Jaysley Beck. I am concerned that women in our Armed Forces still feel inhibited from raising unacceptable behaviour. That cannot be tolerated; we need to plug that gap. We have to find a way of giving them a safe space so that they or their friends can let someone know what is going on.

This proposal seems to dovetail perfectly with the creation of an Armed Forces commissioner and the ethos of that office. If whistleblowing cannot be accommodated within his independent office, I do not know where it can be. The amendment provides for the commissioner’s functions in the Bill to include investigating

“any concern raised by a whistleblower”.

I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. I am told that the virtue of whistleblowing is twofold. First, it provides that safe—and currently missing—space for someone to raise a concern. Secondly, it makes it more obvious more quickly if a problem is emerging in relation to a particular location or individual because, where there is a problem, concerns are likely to emerge in a cluster pattern.

If we can plug this hole, using the creation of the new Armed Forces commissioner to such powerful effect, what a positive message that would be for the MoD. To have, under one umbrella, real action to support and help our Armed Forces women would be a striking, tangible piece of support. I feel very passionately about this: it is the missing piece of the jigsaw and I hope the Minister feels able to respond with some encouragement. I alert him that I am not giving up on this; I have got my teeth into it, and I will be back on Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I will reiterate to the Minister concerns I raised about an earlier amendment on recruits and their training. It is absolutely the case that in a military organisation, training must be tough and realistic—and, at times, discipline must be hard—if we are to have an effective fighting force. That means that there is a very clear risk that people could overstep the bounds. The risk is greater in that kind of environment than in most others; therefore, we have to be particularly vigilant in a military environment to guard against that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The Division Bells are ringing. Does the noble Baroness have much more that she intends to say? Would she prefer to return after the Division?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It might be as well to adjourn for the Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made.

As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best.

In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Goldie]

22: Schedule 2, page 12, line 14, leave out from “2000,” to end of line 15 and insert “for “Service Complaints Ombudsman” substitute “Armed Forces Commissioner”.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the Commissioner subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that I am about to endear myself to the entire Committee. I do not propose to move Amendment 22, with the explanation that the phrase “too clever by half” comes to mind here. This amendment sought to fix what we thought was an omission, only for the Minister to point out—helpfully—that another part of the Bill addresses the omission.

Amendment 22 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, we may be getting near the end of the business, but my work here is not yet done. I thank the Minister for his comments and address my remarks particularly to Amendment 23. The group has indeed been given the title “minor and technical” by the Government, and I know that the Minister has, in good faith, accepted the advice of his officials in that respect. But this amendment makes consequential provision to Clause 3, and it therefore actually makes a substantive change to the process by which complaints are handled—and, crucially, who is responsible.

As the Minister outlined, Clause 3 substitutes the words “a person” for “an officer” in Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. That section outlines the procedure for making a service complaint. Currently, the process begins with a person subject to service law making a complaint to an officer, and that officer then decides whether the complaint is admissible, as per regulations from the Defence Council. If that officer decides that the complaint is not admissible, the person who made the complaint can apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review, and the ombudsman can then make a decision that is binding on the complainant and the officer to whom the complaint was made.

Section 340N sets out the proposal for a referral of an allegation, whereby the ombudsman—soon to be the commissioner—may refer an allegation to the appropriate officer. Clause 3 therefore changes the process for an admissibility decision so that a person subject to service law can make a complaint to a person other than an officer, which could be a civilian or, I presume, someone of any other rank. If that person decides that the complaint is inadmissible, the complainant can appeal to the commissioner. Government Amendment 23 means that the commissioner may refer an allegation to an appropriate person, who could also be a civilian—but what civilian? Is the type of civilian to be further specified in statute, or by statutory instrument?

It seems to me that this proposal does not simply alter the language of the 2006 Act to permit a complaint to be made to the commissioner; it also enables a civilian to make an admissibility decision, which can then be referred to the commissioner. That is a major change to the current system, and it begs the question: why would the commissioner need to be able to refer an allegation to a person who is not an officer, and why would a person who is not an officer make a decision about the admissibility of a complaint? The implication is that there will potentially be a civilian in between the person making a complaint and the commissioner, yet the complainant may be content to involve the chain of command.

Can the Minister establish whether this is a substantive change to the 2006 Act? Does it mean that civilians could be dealing with allegations referred by the commissioner? If so, does this mean that a civil servant, perhaps, could take over the role of complaints and welfare, as opposed to officers—and, if so, would that not interfere with the chain of command? It appears to me that this amendment, which is no doubt well intended and which may be the consequence of a desire to keep drafting neat, introduces some very real concerns. It is not technical—it goes a lot further than that—and, as I said, could risk interfering with the chain of command. Can the Minister confirm whether this change is intended to grant responsibility to other ranks or civilians in respect of service complaints?

For the record, I should say that it is the policy of the Official Opposition that substantive government amendments to Bills should be made not in Grand Committee but on the Floor of the House. Consequently, if this amendment should be shown to be substantive, which I suspect that it is, rather than minor and technical, I would be obliged to object to it today and ask the Minister to bring it to the House on Report so it can be properly scrutinised. Having said that, we want to probe this change and understand it fully, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. He may wish to consider, depending on what his views are, withdrawing Amendment 23 and using Report to clarify the position—but I am very happy to listen to his comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.

Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.

Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.

My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.

I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.

I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.