Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, having been in attendance for all the past stages of the Bill, I think there is no disagreement across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, on wanting to get the best out of the Bill in ensuring that our service men and women have a voice and an ability to raise complaints on issues that go wrong within our Armed Forces. I was on every single Armed Forces Bill in the other place for nearly 20 years, and I said on Report that this is yet another attempt to ensure that we have an open and transparent, but also effective, means by which members of the Armed Forces can raise serious concerns. Sadly, other attempts have failed. Some of this will need amending once the Armed Forces commissioner is in place.

I support my noble friend’s Motion A. On the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, it is a little bit like the debate we had on Report. There is nothing in the Bill which stops an individual, family members or related parties raising a complaint with the commissioner. I would think it important to ensure that the commissioner, he or she, had the ability to look at those complaints that came forward.

The Bill also gives powers to the commissioner to do thematic inquiries, not just individual complaints. I am sure that when he or she is conducting them, there will be a call for evidence and people will come forward in that process. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said about the key point being anonymity for individuals, who have to be protected from any idea that if things are raised there is going to be an effect on them or their career. However, I think that the existing processes outlined in the Bill protect that. I welcome what is put forward in terms of whistleblowing, and I accept that we can dance on the head of a pin about definitions around it, but, as I said on Report, the important thing will be to ensure that we get the information out to members of our Armed Forces that this system exists and can be used.

When I started on this journey 20 years ago, there was huge resistance to any idea of anybody crossing the chain of command, so we have made progress. Sadly, I think that because of the scandals we have had, we have had to ensure that there is an ability to look at these things outside the chain of command.

I do not feel that there is any need for the amendments as put forward, but I do not think we are far apart here. We just want to ensure that this Bill gives an opportunity for service men and women to raise concerns when they affect them or as wider thematic issues. Will this be the end of it? Will we have found of the Ark of the Covenant in terms of whether the system is perfect? I am not sure we will; I think we will have to amend it, and possibly the Armed Forces commissioner, whoever he or she is, will want to amend the process as it beds in.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her amendment. I am not going to repeat the strong and powerful case that she made, but I want to pick up on a couple of issues. Whistleblowing and a complaints process are two different things—it is a point that I tried to make on Report. A coherent complaints process is exceedingly important, and it can rise to the level of commissioner, but whistleblowing is an opportunity to deal with things that are far more systemic and come, in a sense, from a different perspective from that of a complaint. That is why, if we look at financial services regulators or regulators in essence across the piece, we will find they all have both channels. They have a complaints channel for people who run into an issue where they have a really serious complaint that they want to raise, but they also have a whistleblowing channel so that where somebody comes across intelligence, has an awareness or sees something that they think should be attended to because it has much deeper implications, they use that whistleblowing channel to go to the investigative or regulatory body.

To me, it is extraordinary to put in place a new Armed Forces commissioner, a clearly important and independent role, and not give that commissioner the tools which you would normally give anybody else picking up that kind of commissioner role so that, through the whistleblowing route, they can receive and reach for information. Without that information, it is very hard for him or her to function in that role.

I think one of the reasons why this is not in the Bill and was not in the Bill from the start is that a change in culture and mindset is taking place. We are now seeing with many Bills coming through this House the issue of whistleblowing being raised, because the public have become aware every time there is a scandal that there have been people who have spoken out but who have not been heard, have been silenced and have suffered detriment, so now there is a search to put whistleblowing protection, almost as a standard norm, in Bill after Bill—I think it would be better to unify it in one place, but I am not going to make that argument today.

An Armed Forces commissioner needs to receive a regular and steady flow of information to enable them to carry out the role that is intended. I think the establishment of a whistleblowing channel will create far more trust among service personnel, who quite frankly understand better than we do the limitations of complaints systems. When somebody enters a complaints system, they typically see themselves as raising a specific personal issue or one among friends which they want to be resolved. In a welfare case, it may well be a situation where housing repairs have not been carried out. It is a perfectly reliable and important channel, but whistleblowing touches something deeper and more fundamental and systemic. To have that channel running parallel is not exceptional; it is the norm. In fact, excluding it is the exception, so I ask the House to seriously consider this.

As I said, if this Bill was being written six months from now, given the discussion there has been around these issues in Bill after Bill, it would automatically have been put in place. I do not want to slow this Bill down as it is important, but I do ask the Government to quickly draft something that they feel captures all these issues, with the legal expertise that they have, and not to lose this opportunity.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but the purpose of the Bill is to expand the remit of the service complaints ombudsman, who can only look at service complaints, to the commissioner who, as my noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out, can also look at thematic and systemic issues—so it is a complete expansion and change of the role.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we are passing legislation here. The whistleblower amendment is not connected to new Section 340IB. There are two different tiers of somebody coming to the commissioner. There is the first tier, which gives the commissioner all the powers and advantages that noble Lords want: viewing premises, observing, power of entry—all the things laid out in 340IB. That is not in the amendment for the whistleblower. If we pass the whistleblowing amendment, the powers of entry and other powers would not be made available to the commissioner. That is why it becomes a two-tier system, and I suspect that, if noble Lords had the Bill in front of them, they would see exactly the point I am making.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his point. Let us say that somebody comes forward as a whistleblower, raising a hugely important thematic issue, and the commissioner says, “I am going to investigate that”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, pointed out, they cannot do it if the whistleblower says “No, I don’t want you to do it”, because it can be done only with the consent of the whistleblower.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the point the Minister is making but, in all the years when I have met whistleblowers, I have never met one who came forward intending to speak to somebody and then closed down the issue that they had just raised. Whistleblowers are looking for investigation. But, if he were to present something in lieu that corrected that very small lacuna in the language—three or four words, as far as I can see—I am sure that no one would object.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that we are legislating here, not on a wing and a prayer and not on the basis of what may happen or the fact that this has never happened. We are a legislature and we are trying to legislate for things that actually may happen.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to participate in our debates on this Bill. I echo and endorse the sentiments articulated by the Minister at the start of his speech.

These Benches made clear from the outset that we supported the Bill, and an independent presence in the form of the new commissioner is an important and welcome development. It was that very independence which suggested to me that the commissioner would be well placed to look at whistleblowing complaints. Those who have any knowledge of the Armed Forces know that the very environment of discipline and command structure that produces such exemplary servicemen and servicewomen is also a very closed environment, which can make it difficult to seek help when something goes wrong.

Sadly, we know all too well that things can go wrong. That may be in the life of an individual, or there may be a more systemic wrong, but the burning question is how redress is obtained. That is why it seemed that we needed an avenue over and above the existing procedures, and why allowing the Armed Forces commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints was the particular granite boulder at which I have been chipping away,

I have been greatly assisted by the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who has been so supportive of my efforts, and so helpful to the House in explaining the particular virtues of whistleblowing. I was immensely encouraged when the House showed such powerful support for our efforts in amending the Bill as we suggested.

Although the Bill now returns to us with the amendment stripped out, and the granite boulder now bears a new inscription from the Government, entitled, “We are prepared to carry out a review of whistleblowing in defence”, I am very pleased at that progress. As the Minister indicated, he and his colleague in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote to me to confirm that this was the Government’s proposal. I now want to thank the Minister—these are not easy, cosmetic words from the Dispatch Box; I absolutely mean it—because the way in which the Minister and his colleague, Mr Luke Pollard, have engaged, has been immensely helpful to our efforts to try to improve the situation for our Armed Forces personnel. Above all else, I want to thank them both for listening.

I have accepted the offer in good faith, and I have agreed that the Bill should now pass so that progress can be made with this important appointment. But, before I lay down my masonry chisel, there are a few further inscriptions I wish to add to the boulder so that we all know where we are. The Minister was kind enough to reference a few of these, extracted from the letter which I wrote to him.

As I have previously argued, more than one route for making a complaint is not a weakness; anything which facilitates accessibility by the complainer is a strength. However, the specific points I wish to raise in relation to the role of the review are that it can be a stocktake of the current procedures and can assess whether these need to be simplified, and, if so, how that can be done. The review should also recognise the key distinction between simply raising a complaint and blowing the whistle on serious wrongdoing. As the Minister has kindly indicated, the review should also take place in close consultation with the Armed Forces commissioner whenever he or she is appointed.

It is very welcome that Minister Al Carns has been proposed to lead the review; it is very important to have a person of his stature conducting it. If the review is to gain the trust of service personnel, we must have someone who has the respect of the forces and experience of life in the services leading it.

I have a small number of specific questions about the review. How will the consultation take place, and what are the timescales? In particular, how will the views of service personnel be sought, and will the interim and final findings be published and laid before Parliament to enable full scrutiny of the findings? In the letter there is a reference to

“consistency between the application and accessibility of military and civilian whistleblowing procedures”.

I was not entirely clear what that meant, but I am sure the Minister will clarify in his closing remarks.

Further details of the review are to be published via a Written Ministerial Statement in due course. That review will produce initial findings by the end of the year and a final report and recommendations in spring 2026. Can the Minister say when the Written Ministerial Statement will be published, approximately, and will it contain the terms of reference for the review?

In conclusion, I look forward to the Minister’s response, I reaffirm my thanks for his constructive engagement and I hope that I can play a helpful role when the consultation process commences. Our common aim—of the Minister, myself and our colleagues across the Chamber—is to improve life for our service personnel. I support the government Motion and I support the passing of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief, but first I join with the Minister in stressing the importance of remembering VJ Day. We on these Benches share his view.

I congratulate both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the team that he stands with, including Luke Pollard, who I had the privilege to meet with. I just say to both of them that the outcome that has emerged now at the end of this process is, frankly, better than anything I had ever hoped for. What we have been promised by the Minister—because of the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in raising and pushing the issue, as well as the willingness of the Government to listen—is this much broader review of whistleblowing in the defence sector, led by the Minister for Veterans and People. That is exceedingly important, because it underscores a changing cultural attitude in the whole defence sector and in the Government, which means that in the future we can look forward to much greater transparency and much more effective paths for whistle- blowing right across the piece.

Once again, I add my congratulations to those who have been expressed earlier. We also will no longer attempt in any way to impede the passage of this legislation. Its content is very positive and we supported that underlying principle. It has been a privilege to be part of this discussion and this process. I accept on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith the opportunity to meet in the future, and we will put various thoughts in writing in order to assist the process.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be so brief that they will not have enough time to put my name on the annunciator.

I welcome the agreement that has been reached and I think that this is a good example of the House improving what is an important Bill, which I hope will succeed in every respect. I pay tribute to all noble Lords, because I have been involved in that sense with the Bill since the beginning—I have an interest, which I have declared previously. It has been a very useful, good example of the House in action, and I particularly congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who has behaved in an exemplary way throughout the entire process. I am very pleased to see that the result that we have agreed will pass through and that the whistleblowing defence review will take place.

I have failed: they have put my name on the annunciator.