Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) The Commissioner must—(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, there is always time for a new experience. Despite having been in your Lordships’ House for 10 and a half years, this is the first time that I have ever moved an amendment as the first amendment in Committee, which means that I do not have any experience of quite what I am supposed to do, other than to stand up and say that I am moving the amendment in my name.

I am very aware that, at various Committee stages of Bills, the movers of amendments seem to talk at great length. The bit that I do know is that I am not supposed to give another Second Reading speech—but I also noted before I arrived that it said that movers should not speak for more than 15 minutes, and I am moving the first amendment in two groups. For the benefit of everyone in Grand Committee this afternoon, noble Lords will all be extremely relieved to know that I do not plan to speak for more than 15 minutes in total, across all five groups, unless I am interrupted or heckled. We were all very clear at Second Reading that this is an important Bill and that we all broadly support it and wish it well. Any amendments that we bring forward are intended to improve it and not in any way to undermine it. It is very much in that spirit that the first amendment is proposed.

This amendment is in a little group all on its own, because it refers to the Armed Forces covenant. When the Armed Forces covenant has come up previously, it was very clear under the previous Government that there was a commitment to it and a desire that it should apply to businesses and maybe to schools, the health service or to other branches external to government—but the Government themselves and the MoD were not subject to the Armed Forces covenant. From these Benches, we always felt that that was a bit of a gap. In looking at this new role for the Armed Forces commissioner, it seems entirely appropriate that the person appointed should pay due attention to the Armed Forces covenant and that they should

“uphold and give due regard”

to it, in the wording of the amendment.

We also think that it would be helpful for the Armed Forces commissioner to monitor the Armed Forces covenant and how far the principles and commitments are being upheld. It is an important document and an important covenant, yet sometimes it seems to be honoured more in the breach than in the reality. Therefore, in that spirit, we want to ask His Majesty’s Government at least to think about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant. With that, I beg to move.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that this is the first time she has ever moved an amendment in Committee—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The first amendment.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

In my case, it is the first time I have ever been at a Committee on a Bill on the Armed Forces. When I walked in the door and was handed the latest regulations and so on, for which we are all very grateful, I must admit that when I looked at some of the amendments, I wondered where the disagreements are going to lie. As someone who comes fresh to this, I should have to say briefly—I am going to be briefer than the noble Baroness—that I thought, “This seems like a reasonable amendment. What’s wrong with it?” So when my noble friend the Minister replies, I should be grateful to have explained what may be the objections to this amendment, because if there is something I do not understand about the relationship between the Armed Forces commissioner and the covenant, I should very much like to know.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

Perhaps I may start by welcoming everybody to the Committee, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way in which she introduced the amendment, and in particular the points she made about the general approval that everyone has with respect to the main thrust of the Bill. But of course, that does not negate the opportunity and chance for us to discuss how we may test what the Government are thinking and, where appropriate, suggest improvements.

I shall reflect widely on the various points that are made and my intention is that, between Committee and Report, we will have meetings between ourselves so that we can discuss how we might take all this forward. I say that as a general view as to what my intention is in order to make progress on the Bill, so that everyone will feel as though the contributions they have made have helped. I cannot promise the answers will necessarily be those that everybody would want, but certainly it is my intention, following Committee, to work with people to look at the various discussions that have taken place.

I apologise for the fact that the draft regulations dealing with the definition of what we mean with respect to a family have been made available online only an hour or two ago. Certainly, we gave them out as people came into the Room. There is, I am afraid, nothing I can add other than to say it was an administrative oversight, and I apologise profusely to everyone for that. I also know how irritating it is, having sat where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is, to have to wait for regulations that do not appear. I can only apologise to the Committee for that.

It may have been the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced an amendment, but nobody would have known. It is a very important amendment. I thank noble Lords and Baronesses here today for turning their expertise to the scrutiny of the Bill and for offering their board support to its principle and purpose. The ongoing welfare of our serving personnel and their families must remain a priority for this Government and the commissioner. The amendments we are considering today will do much to keep their welfare at the forefront of our minds in both Houses of Parliament.

I declare an interest, as my son-in-law is an active member of the Reserve Forces.

Amendment 1 is on the important issue of the Armed Forces covenant. As the noble Baroness said, its effect would be to place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. As I am sure noble Lords know—and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out—the Armed Forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past and their families, including the bereaved. This Government, as the last Government were, are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. Indeed, our manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law with an ambition to include that in the next Armed Forces Act.

An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to the entirety of the Armed Forces community, which encompasses both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. As the noble Baroness knows, the Armed Forces commissioner is very focused on the serving community and their families. It will, of course, be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families, and I would imagine that those issues will be very much at the heart of the “general service welfare” matters that are within the remit of the commissioner to investigate. However, I strongly believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the issues of our serving community, and it is in that role where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make the real impact that we all want.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify this in the Bill, but I do not, in any way, decry the importance of the Armed Forces covenant, which every member of this Committee supports. We aim to extend and develop that in the Armed Forces Act that is coming in the not-too-distant future. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, but I thank her for the thrust of the point that it made.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. If I may give a slightly flippant response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who said that the amendment looks straightforward and is difficult to disagree with, so “How can the Government not agree with it?”, it sometimes feels with legislation that, however relevant an amendment might be, Governments of whichever flavour say, “No, we can’t possibly agree with this amendment, but we might be able to come back with something worded a little differently”. Government amendments might look similar to opposition amendments, but they may be accepted.

On this occasion, I hear what the Minister said on the specific reasons why the target audience of the Armed Forces commissioner is somewhat different to that of a wider role that would include veterans and other members of the Armed Forces community. However, I am still slightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out that it is axiomatic that the Armed Forces commissioner would be bound by the Armed Forces covenant, but one of our concerns is that the Government seem to think that the Armed Forces covenant is something that other organisations should implement; they have not bound themselves to it, somehow. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward in the next Armed Forces Bill—they seem to come along quite regularly, a bit like Christmas. We look forward to that but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of this section, “persons subject to service law” includes people going through the recruitment process to join any branch of the armed forces, and “relevant family members” includes the family members of people going through any such recruitment process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow those currently going through the recruitment process to join the armed forces to use the Armed Forces Commissioner for its intended purposes.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group are in my name, and Amendment 10 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 2 relates to a matter of particular concern to my honourable friend in the other place: that we need to be very mindful of those who are going through the recruitment process. The legislation is obviously about those subject to service law, but one of the concerns is that, as people go through the recruitment process, they are potentially vulnerable. Clearly, that would not apply to somebody just walking into an Army recruitment office, but if somebody has got to the point of applying, going through the medical process and then going through various assessments to see whether they are suitable to be recruited—apparently there is sometimes a requirement to stay overnight, for example—there is a real concern that we need to make sure that they are not put in any difficulty, particularly when it comes to young people.

If there is no Service Complaints Commissioner because the role is being taken over by the Armed Forces commissioner, will it be possible for those going through the recruitment process to be part of that? I know that the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful if he would at least explain to the Grand Committee how the interests of those going through the recruitment process, particularly the very young, will be maintained and if he would confirm that safeguarding will be in place.

Amendment 10 is to some extent related to the draft regulations that have just appeared. At Second Reading the Minister said that he would make sure that the draft regulations would be out in good time before Grand Committee—I think he may have said that it would be not just half an hour before. They arrived a good two hours before Grand Committee, so we are probably winning. The draft regulations talk about deceased service personnel’s family, so that bit of our amendment has already been covered, but I have two questions, one of which is linked to the amendment as initially tabled, which is about kinship carers and whether the language used in the draft regulations is intended to cover that or whether we still need to think about a more specific amendment on kinship carers coming back on Report.

At the moment, the various clauses in the draft regulations talk about “relevant family members”, including those for whom someone

“has assumed regular and substantial caring responsibilities”,

but there is very little definition of what is meant by that. It may be that there is other, not necessarily Armed Forces legislation, where there are very clear definitions, but it would be helpful for Grand Committee to understand how His Majesty’s Government understand that.

As the draft regulations happen to be in front of us, I wonder whether this is the right place to ask the Minister my second question relating to them, regarding Regulation 2(3)(b) about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”.

I am just wondering how far the remit of “relevant family members” is intended to extend. If we are talking about someone at the time of a bereavement, it is usually clear who is the spouse or civil partner. Where we are dealing with people who have previously held those roles, is it anyone who has previously been in the role of something similar to a spouse or civil partner? How do His Majesty’s Government intend to define that? Is the Armed Forces commissioner supposed to deal with all those relationships, or will we be looking at a narrower definition? I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I will speak against Amendment 2. I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board.

I understand the intent, but my objection to Amendment 2 is based on practicality. The recruitment process has changed dramatically in recent years. Indeed, you can start your recruitment process not by going into an Army recruitment centre but simply by going online and clicking a button. Last year alone, we had over 100,000 applicants to the Regular Army and over 30,000 applicants to the Army Reserve. That was just for a single service, so I think it is fair to say that probably in excess of 200,000 people will have applied to join the Armed Forces over the past year. If we were to allow these people to access this system, I think the system would simply be overwhelmed and goodness knows what the cost would be.

The principle is that those who are subject to service law are subject to the Bill, and service law does not kick in until the point of attestation, when you actually join the Army. I was privileged to be in Nepal only three weeks ago to witness our next 372 Gurkhas being attested into the British Army. I understand the sentiment, but, with the greatest of respect, I think it is simply impractical. We would open the aperture of the system to so many people that we would run the risk of the system simply not working because it would be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and we are probably all delighted to hear that there were so many applications for the Army last year, given that recruitment has been an issue. Could the noble Lord continue with some of that exposition? Obviously, it is possible to apply by going online and clicking a button and, clearly, the applicant should not have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner at that stage. But at the stage where somebody is going through a medical or being assessed, could there be concerns that we need to think about, even if that is not through the Armed Forces commissioner?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point, which is why I said at the start of my remarks that I understood the intent behind what she is trying to achieve. Without getting distracted, the challenge that we face at the moment is a crisis not of recruitment but of conversion. One of our biggest challenges is that we have a conversion rate—forgive me if this figure is not quite right—of about 13 or 14 to one in the Army and about 20 to one in the Army Reserve. The challenge is in the process of recruitment and the time that it takes. I am straying beyond my role here today, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Armed Forces are seeking to address that. Those who are frustrated in that process probably should have the ability to have redress, but I am not sure that this process is the right one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. Let us be clear that the service complaints system remains in place; it is the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities that are being transferred into the Armed Forces commissioner role. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for allowing me to reiterate that point. He is absolutely right that, in most circumstances, the commissioner will refer individual service complaints back to the individual service for it to look into. I agree with him on his point about ensuring that that system continues and works in the way that we would all want it to, and the Armed Forces commissioner’s responsibility is with respect to the general welfare issues that arise.

In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, when we look at how we publicise that—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has highlighted the reserves—we will make sure that we take on board the point that the noble Lord just made so that there is no confusion, but that at the same time we create a culture where people feel able to bring something forward to the appropriate body, whatever that may be.

I just want to address another point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made. It was a very important point, which should be reiterated, about how some of the poor behaviours we see reflect on the image in total of the Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to answer the “So what?” question.

I just say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—or maybe it is to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—that, subject to the will of Parliament, we hope that the Bill will get Royal Assent in late spring this year, and the Armed Forces Bill will come into effect early in 2026. So that is the timeline that that we are operating to.

Just for information to the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s contract runs out at the end of 2025, but within the Bill there are transitional arrangements that are able to be made should there be a period between the end of her contract and the start of the Armed Forces commissioner role. I just want to be clear about that.

I turn to the formal remarks that I wish to make. Amendment 2 relates to the addition of those undergoing the recruitment to the Armed Forces so that they come under the commissioner’s scope. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns about potential recruits. From the first day in uniform to the last, the Government are committed to all members of the Armed Forces and to supporting their families. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete attestation—as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned—transforming them into recruits who are members of the Armed Forces. This means that they and their families are within the commissioner’s scope.

The experience of a potential recruit—a candidate—is very important and, as such, we have set a new ambition for the Armed Forces to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days, and to provide a provisional start date within 30 days. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out—the figure I have is more than 100,000—up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope may vastly increase the workload of the commissioner, watering down their ability to focus on other key areas impacting service personnel and their families.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government’s work on improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent, highlighting that defence is a modern forward-thinking and forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career. Our aim is to attract and recruit more, as well as to maximise the number of applicants who successfully enter and remain in the Armed Forces’ employment.

Turning to Amendment 10, I will start to answer some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised concerning the definition of “families”. I again thank the noble Earl and thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I acknowledge her concerns about providing certainty to all Members on the application of the Bill. I promised that during Second Reading, and I have apologised for the late arrival of the regulations. But the debate that we have had from my noble friend Lord Beamish and others about what should be in those regulations will be something that we can return to as the Bill progresses but also when the draft regulations are debated by this place and the other place.

I welcome the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and thank it for considering the Bill so carefully. It provides a vital role in ensuring the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before Report.

The families definition outlined in the regulations seeks to include all groups that have a close familial relationship with the serviceperson. In broad categories, the draft definition covers partners or former partners of a serviceperson, including those who are married or in a civil partnership, or someone in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership—namely, a long-term relationship. I can hear others already saying, “What do you mean by ‘long-term’?” I just say that we are attempting to create a definition—I am just trying to head off my noble friend Lord Beamish before he challenges me on what “long-term” means. The serious point is that we are trying to have a wide definition, and we understand the difficulty that that raises. But we will take on board the points that people make.

The draft definition also includes children of the serviceperson—either the serviceperson’s own children or their stepchildren—as well as their partner’s children or a child for whom the serviceperson is caring or has financial responsibilities. It includes parental figures of the serviceperson, which will include parents and stepparents and anyone who acted in a parental role when the serviceperson was under 18, such as a long-term foster carer or kinship carer. The definition also includes a sibling of the serviceperson, be that a full or half sibling or a stepsibling, or someone who legitimately considers themselves a sibling of a serviceperson through their upbringing. Again, noble Lords can understand some of the difficulty that may arise with that, but they can understand our attempt to capture as wide a number of people as we can.

The draft definition also includes other specified relatives of the serviceperson or their partner where they are part of the serviceperson’s household, are financially dependent on them or are cared for by the serviceperson or their partner. It includes bereaved family members if they fall under any of the above categories immediately before the serviceperson’s death. Although the definition explicitly includes bereaved families, it does not specifically use the term “kinship carers”. The definition has been drafted to ensure that service personnel who are kinship carers, or kinship carers of the serviceperson when they were growing up, are in scope, thus giving biological parents and those who acted as a kinship carer the same access to the commissioner.

Going back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is why there is a difference between the definition here and some of the other definitions with respect to the use of “families”. Our intention is to try to draw that as widely as possible and, therefore, that is why there are some of the differences that the noble Earl mentioned. I hope that provides some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness, on both her amendments, is trying to achieve.

I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this aspect of the Bill. We will again take into account the points that have been made and reflect on them, not least about the need for us to consider the draft regulations, as well as the points that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made about recruit training and a need for us to consider where particular arrangements may be made. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate on the two amendments in this group. Several of us have learned a lot, and some are now probably a little puzzled about the status of an engagement versus a civil partnership versus a marriage because, to most people, an engaged person is not the same. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that we might want to come back to that issue.

However, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for clarifying His Majesty’s Government’s attempt to define family relationships broadly, because some years ago, when I was first on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was on a visit and was told of some frustrations of people not being able to get accommodation because of certain familial relationships that were not deemed to be actual relationships. The fact that the draft regulation is going to be broad in scope is welcome. The formal answer that the Minister gave when he was talking about foster relationships and so on probably covers the kinship aspects that we are looking for in that part of Amendment 10. We look forward to a further iteration of the draft regulations and definitions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me correct something before we move on. I said that the Armed Forces Bill will come into force in early 2026. That is not correct; I misspoke, of course. The Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. I apologise profusely for that error and hope that everyone who listens to our proceedings, legal or otherwise, now fully understands that I meant the Armed Forces commissioner, which, I suspect, is what everybody in the Committee thought I meant. Just for the sake of clarity, I mean the Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. The Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent by the end of 2026.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. I suspect most Members of the Grand Committee were not necessarily listening so closely.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Clearly, it was only I who was not listening sufficiently closely, but I understood it as being the Armed Forces commissioner rather than the next Armed Forces Bill. However, I will probably have to not move Amendment 10 at a later point in proceedings.

However, the amendment has elicited a fascinating debate that allowed us to explore certain aspects of the recruitment process and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out, the group that sounds similar to, but has a different role from, that of the recruit trainees. I should very much like the opportunity outside Committee to talk further with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the Minister, because my sense from the debate was there may well be some value in thinking about making it clear that that part of the role of the Armed Forces commissioner would indeed be to pay particular attention to the situation of recruit trainees, for example. I realise the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, “Ah but we must make sure that we do not overwhelm the Armed Forces commissioner”, and I completely understand that. The role as stated in the Bill is not just to be the ombudsperson with a different name; it is also clearly to be about promoting the welfare of persons subject to service law.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a strong case for looking closely at how recruit trainees are being looked after. So I may wish to bring back an amended amendment, or a different amendment, on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 3— I will refer to Amendment 5 later—is like Amendment 4 in the sense that it covers parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. It does so in different ways, but Amendment 3, standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, puts forward one way of achieving this.

In the Second Reading debate on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill in the House of Commons, much play was made of the fact that the Armed Forces commissioner will be akin to the German armed forces commissioner. My right honourable friend John Healey, the Secretary of State, said:

“The role is inspired by the long-established German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, which enjoys cross-party support in the Bundestag and support across the military”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 75.]


He then went on to quote the present commissioner for Germany’s armed forces, who welcomes and looks forward to the new Armed Forces commissioner being installed in the UK.

Here, my noble friend the Minister also referred to the inspiration from Germany for the Armed Forces commissioner when he said this at Second Reading:

“The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years … Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 302.]


So, really, the spark that has done this is the German system.

I have to say, that is where it departs a little. The German system looks at the thematic issues that will be the remit of the new commissioner and she can also look at general service complaints, but the way in which the German commissioner is appointed is very interesting and very different from what is being proposed in this Bill. At the moment, this is what is proposed in paragraph 3 of the new schedule to be inserted by Schedule 1:

“The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State”.


So the Secretary of State will be the person who appoints this person and decides who they should be, but the German system is very different. The German armed forces parliamentary commissioner is established under the German Basic Law, which was framed in 1949 and, I think, clarified in 1956. The Bundestag parliamentary commissioner has some of the same remit as the proposed commissioner in the UK but there is the force of federal law behind him or her.

Then, we come on to how the German commissioner is appointed. They are elected by the Bundestag, whose website says:

“The Bundestag shall elect the Commissioner by secret ballot with a majority of its Members”.


It goes on to say that candidates may be put forward

“by the Defence Committee, the parliamentary groups”

or groups of members of the Bundestag for this purpose. It says that there should be no debate and that there is a simple vote. It also states:

“Every German who is entitled to be elected to the Bundestag and has attained the age of 35 shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner”.


Although my noble friend and the Secretary of State have argued that this would be akin to the German system, I am not sure that it is, given the powers, process and parliamentary scrutiny that it has. Am I surprised that, in drafting this, they have ignored the bit about Parliament? No, I am not, because the Executive are never keen on giving up power or ceding it to Parliament. I have no doubt that, following this debate, the Minister’s civil servants will come up with umpteen reasons why this cannot be done and, if it was, that somehow the earth would stop spinning and the sun would stop rising.

I have known my noble friend for many years and, as I always like to be helpful, I point out that there is a precedent already in the UK in the appointment of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I was not aware how he or she was appointed until I looked it up, but it is very much Parliament’s responsibility to appoint that individual. It is an open competition, and there is then an interview panel and final selection, which is done by the chair of the PACAC—the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee —an experienced ombudsman, and an independent panel. In that case, Parliament, via the role of those two individuals, has a direct say in selecting that person, so I am sure that we could come up with some system whereby Parliament could have a more direct say in who this person will be. It is a new role, and if the Government are arguing that they want to mimic or mirror the German system, Parliament needs to have a role in it. As the Bill stands, it has no role at all.

I know that, in Amendment 4, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, puts forward an alternative method of involving Parliament. We need to look at ways in which this could be achieved because, without it, the question of who the individual is—I will come on to this later regarding finance—could be at the behest of the Government of the day. If we are trying to give the impression that this person will be independent and accountable to not only the Armed Forces but the general public, and have an oversight role, having Parliament in that process is important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I suggest that, before the nomination is sent to the King, it should go through both Houses of Parliament. That would give at least some oversight of the mechanism.

Amendment 5, which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is about the tenure of office, where again the Bill tries to mimic the German system but does not quite do it. Under the Bill as currently outlined, the tenure is a five-year term that can be extended but only for another two years. I wonder where they got the extra two years from. I think that was a suggestion in an annual report from one of the existing ombudsmen, but why two years? Amendment 5 proposes that the tenure should be up to two five-year terms. That would be in line with the German system, which is a five-year term that can then be repeated for another five years.

I accept that, with public appointments, it is important to get a turnover of people, but with this role, first, it is a new role. Secondly, the individual is not going to be a member of the Armed Forces or a civil servant, so he or she might have to take a long time to get themselves up to speed with the way in which our Armed Forces are structured and operate. That is before, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, they get their head around the complex nature of the Armed Forces family.

The option of having an extra five years would be better. You only have to look at the workload in the present ombudsman’s report, which has seen something like a 25% increase in complaints. If this person is going to be hit with that from day one, they are going to be very busy. Added to that role—remember that this is a new and extended role—they will do thematic reviews. An obvious one would be on initial recruitment, for example. However, we have looked at this in the past in terms of the Nicholas Blake report into the sad deaths around Deepcut. The House of Commons Select Committee also did quite a major report on that back in 2006. It is sad that some of those things have not changed.

It would be in order to extend that person’s tenure. It would also allow the individual to get a quicker under- standing and be able to follow through on reports. I think some of these thematic reports will take a long time to go through. If they are going to make a change and have weight, they are going to have to be done thoroughly without a time limit that means it will be passed to a new commissioner or, somehow, they will run out of time.

All I will say to my noble friend is that I have looked at the German system; this is not the German system. It can be nearer to the German system if we make some amendments to it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 4 and 21, which are in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, pointed out, in some ways Amendments 3 and 4 are trying to bring a parliamentary dimension to the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner. I fully agree with everything the noble Lord said on Amendment 3.

There is no objection from these Benches to Amendment 3; it seems a very reasonable amendment. Indeed, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is wrong, and the Box—although there is not officially a Box in Grand Committee—officials are not going to be able to give the Minister a bit of paper to tell him that there is no way on earth there can be a parliamentary vote. Some sort of statutory instrument and a negative or positive approval in both Houses seems to be de minimis. I would hope that His Majesty’s Government will think seriously about allowing some parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.

One of the problems I envisage with the straightforward negative or even a positive assent is that normally in Grand Committee, when we have a statutory instrument, it feels a little bit like the Scottish play:

“When shall we three meet again?”


Very often, it is the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the Labour Benches—now the Government Benches —and either the noble Earl, Lord Minto, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and me. Very often, there is nobody else other than officials who are required to be here looking at statutory instruments. If we are talking about a serious role for Parliament looking at the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner, I would like to advocate for a stronger role, which may include a committee as outlined by Amendment 4.

Amendments 3 and 4 are almost different models of how to make an amendment. The one from the Liberal Democrat Benches almost looks as if my colleagues, in drafting it, came up with something from the European Parliament, which is extremely detailed about what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has done something that is nice, skeleton legislation in the true Westminster style. However, I suggest that including a committee’s involvement—most logically the House of Commons Defence Committee, and maybe also the opportunity to speak to the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee—could be an important way of ensuring that the commissioner is a robust appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

An individual can become commissioner if they have been a member of the Armed Forces, but not if they are a serving member.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker]

I think my noble friend knows the answer to his own question, which is: no, it is not in the Bill—that is what he wants me to say. From his own experience, he knows that the Secretary of State said in the other place, and read into the record, the importance of the role of the Defence Committee and the importance of its recommendations. Of course, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for that. In my view, if the Defence Committee was so exercised about a particular appointment and had concerns about it, the Secretary of State could of course still go ahead but it is difficult to believe that they would not consider that very deeply before confirming that appointment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, disagreed with Amendment 4 on the grounds of its length. Might His Majesty’s Government be open to a very small amendment, which could be “the Secretary of State appointing, on the advice of the Defence Select Committee”, or something of that ilk? That would meet the noble and gallant Lord’s concern about adding too many words to statute, but it would put in the Bill the sort of parliamentary engagement that we might be looking for.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Again, this goes to the heart of the issue of independence. I accept that the Government wish to ensure that this individual and the office are independent and cannot be influenced, or have their work affected, by the Ministry of Defence. But at the moment the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner”.


I am sure my noble friend will turn around and say, “Well, it would be unheard of for a Secretary of State to withhold money”—in a minute I shall come on to an example of where this actually happened. But I learned a long time ago in local government that, if you control the purse strings, you control a lot of influence in terms of how you can affect the actions of any public body or any activity.

Again, referring to the German system, I accept, as my noble friend said—that this is not a direct copy of the German system. But there are safeguards in the German system because it says in the federal law there that the necessary staff equipment is made available to the commissioner for the performance of his or her functions, and it is a separate piece in the Bundestag’s budget. This is the budget that is drawn up by the Bundestag. It is a draft budget that is done by the Council of Elders and is then agreed to by the Bundestag. So, again, Parliament has a direct say. It has not been down to a Minister to decide that the Armed Forces commissioner will or will not get the finance, which is very different to what we are proposing here.

My noble friend said in the Second Reading debate and again today that the difference is that this will be put on a statutory footing and, therefore, that will make all the difference. It will not. The Intelligence and Security Committee is on a statutory footing under the Justice and Security Act 2013. I presently chair the committee, and it has not had its budget raised for the last 10 years. It has now got to a point where crisis talks are taking place over whether we can carry out our functions as a committee. That is because the previous Government took a clear decision not to increase the budget, even though we asked for moneys to be brought forward. So, again, just because things are on a statutory footing that does not mean that somehow they will be insulated from a future Secretary of State or Government —I am not suggesting that my noble friend or the Secretary of State would do this—who may not like what the commission is doing and may say, “We’re not going to give you another increase in your budget”. That is the death by a thousand cuts that has happened to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Likewise, I presume that the budget is within the remit of the MoD. I have not been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, but I know the battles royal that there are over different priorities in the defence budget. That makes you wonder who would be arguing for this within the defence budget if it is coming across other things. Trying to be helpful, I am looking for other examples for the Minister of where we could perhaps have a different system. A different system would be, again, my old friend the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, whose money comes from the Treasury and is part of the Consolidated Fund, so it is not in a departmental budget. That at least gives some protection for that money. But this is a serious point, and how this can be remedied needs to be looked at.

This is a simple amendment, changing “may” to “must”, but, without it, the individual in the role would, as I say, be very vulnerable. Who in the MoD is actually arguing for the Armed Forces commissioner in terms of budget? Are they arguing for this rather than for some piece of shiny new kit in a procurement round, for example?

If we cannot have this amendment, some thought needs to be given before Report on, first, how the budget will be provided and guaranteed; and, secondly, how this will somehow be ring-fenced. Without that, it will be easy to kill this off, either by not giving it any finance at all or by cutting its budget over a number of years. Those are my points and that is the reason for this amendment. With that, I beg to move Amendment 6.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seems quite similar in form to the previous one. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has presented a modest amendment that would change “may” to “must”. The amendment I am speaking to is a little fuller; it would take more lines in statute. Although the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is no longer in his place, I stand with some caution because I realise that my amendment runs to three lines.

Its purpose is very similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. In many ways, his amendment does the job, and does so very neatly. Nevertheless, I will clarify a bit more why we feel that it is necessary to put in the Bill that funding and resources will be made available to the Armed Forces commissioner. It is precisely because, if there is no clarity and certainty on that, all the ambitions in the Bill are in danger. The idea is that the Armed Forces commissioner will be more than a glorified ombudsperson and that they will promote the welfare of the Armed Forces’ serving personnel and relevant family members, as well as promoting the Armed Forces more generally. How will the commissioner do that if they are not adequately resourced?

The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, is absolutely right: this is a time of financial pressures. There is a real danger that the sort of role that can be cut is the role of the Armed Forces commissioner. Although I know that we have guarantees that defence expenditure will be increased and that we keep talking about the size of the defence budget, it is still very small, relatively speaking. If this post is being funded out of MoD funding, there is a danger that it will not be a priority. Maybe it is the role of the Minister for the Armed Forces to argue for this post and, at each budget round, to make sure that there are no cuts—death by a thousand cuts—but I would not be so sanguine.

I would like the Grand Committee at least to think about the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I are raising in our similar but different amendments; and to consider ways of ensuring that, if the Armed Forces commissioner is to be brought into place, they are able to do the job that His Majesty’s Government and this Committee want them to do and which the Armed Forces need them to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 8 and 9 are in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Goldie. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding his name to these amendments. I know that he is particularly concerned with these issues of welfare and their impacts on the families of our Armed Forces personnel.

These amendments seek to ensure that the commissioner will consider both the educational needs of service families and Armed Forces pensions. They therefore seek to expand on the somewhat limited definition of general service welfare matters in the Bill. I will preface my remarks by acknowledging that we have not presented an exhaustive list—nor do we intend to. But we believe that these issues are of sufficient importance to warrant debate during our deliberations today.

Many Armed Forces families depend on private schools. By the very nature of their service, personnel frequently find themselves moving locations, be that through overseas deployment or reassignment from one garrison or airbase to another. This poses a number of welfare concerns. It requires service personnel to either uproot their families or put them into an independent school, which allows their children to remain in a familiar educational setting. Imposing VAT on fees for independent schools will regrettably result in higher fees being passed on to the service men and women, who are simply trying to ensure the continuity of their children’s education.

I impress on the Minister that charging VAT on private school fees for military families will make becoming or remaining a service member less attractive, not more.

In response to this and in the interest of fairness, the Government have decided to uprate the continuity of education allowance. However, as my noble friend Lady Goldie has been keen to highlight through her Oral Question on 5 February and her letter to the Minister, there is real concern that this uprating will not be sufficient to cover the new higher fees. Unfortunately, this has the potential to negatively impact both recruitment and retention.

The issue that I have outlined is even greater when one considers the provision of special educational needs for the children of service personnel. There are already significant barriers to service families receiving adequate support for their children with special educational needs. It can take up to two years to receive an education, health and care plan from the local authority but, given that service personnel often find themselves relocating, this process is made all the harder.

There can be no doubt that the education of their children constitutes a serious welfare matter for those serving in our Armed Forces. All parents want the best for their families, and ensuring that they will not have to withdraw their children from school, or that they will be able to support their child with special educational needs, impacts on their morale. This is evidenced by responses to the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, where in 2024, 62% of respondents reported that the impact of service life on their families was the main reason for leaving the services. We know that more must be done to improve this, and I am concerned that some of the Government’s measures regarding education may have the reverse effect.

The intention of Amendment 9 is to confirm with absolute certainty that the commissioner will consider pensions and the role they play in recruitment and retention. Let us be in no doubt that they remain one of the major benefits offered to service personnel. In their Autumn Budget, the Government proposed charging inheritance tax on the death-in-service payment while a service member is not on active duty abroad. We know that the benefit will continue to be exempted when a service member dies when deployed on active duty, but the exemption will not apply when the death occurs at home. This is nothing less than an injustice. If Sergeant Jones, for example, has an unfortunate accident while driving his car and passes away, not on active service, he will be penalised. He may have just come back from an active war zone the day before, where, had he been killed, his benefit would have been protected.

The principle here is surely that it does not matter where a service member dies; their families will continue to grieve regardless. They will still require support, both financial and emotional, and the new commissioner should be able to provide that. This Bill is aimed at protecting the retention and recruitment of Armed Forces personnel. It seems fitting that the commissioner must therefore consider the education of service families and death-in-service payments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to what I hope is the last of my amendments today, Amendment 11, on the further matters that the commissioner may investigate. Before I speak to my amendment, I have a question that arises from the two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, and so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which is about the scope of the commissioner’s role. I think I heard the Minister say earlier in response to Amendment 2 that the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner applies as long as somebody is in uniform, from the day of attestation, and I understood it to be for the time that the person is in uniform, and that it did not also apply to veterans. I would be interested to know whether I have misunderstood or whether the amendments—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise if I did not make this clear. The fundamental principle of the Bill is that the people who are in scope are those who are subject to service law, and their families. That is a really important point. The other point is that veterans are not in scope for the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am most grateful to him for clarifying that. In which case, do I understand it correctly that Amendments 8 and 9 potentially go beyond the scope of the Bill because they talk about former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants? The Minister can come back to that, but I was slightly puzzled when I read those amendments.

Amendment 11 covers something that I hope is in scope, asking that the Armed Forces commissioner look in particular at certain more minority members of the Armed Forces. As seen in relatively recent reports—the Atherton report and the Etherton report—women and LGBT minority groups in the services have in the past been subject to particular disadvantages. There may also be other groups, so in many ways, this is a probing amendment. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I agree with, follows a similar pattern.

I am minded also to suggest that the Armed Forces commissioner could look at this, with special reference to recruit training. This means that, while I will not bring back Amendment 2, we might nevertheless bring back the idea of recruits in training being a particular focus of the Armed Forces commissioner—particularly in terms of that person being able to reach out to those in training and make them understand that role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Now I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. She is talking about recruits in training, so once they have done the attestation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes. For the purposes of this I am making a verbal amendment to what is on the page; I am not proposing to bring back an amendment like Amendment 2 that would bring in hundreds of thousands of other people. I do not think that was ever the intention; the drafting was not as clear as it might have been. The amendment laid in the Commons and re-laid here was broader than it should have been.

Having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my sense is that we should not only be looking at women, LGBT groups, BAME people, non-UK citizens and disabled people in the Armed Forces. We should also be thinking that this might be the time to think about the Armed Forces commissioner not just being available for those going through training, but it might be sensible to make sure that the communications are made to them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I apologise to the noble Baroness and the Committee more broadly for not being here when my name was attached to earlier amendments. I am not going to complain much about my latest train delays, but I will warn anyone heading on the east coast main line tonight that there are overhead wire problems.

I will speak specifically to Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which I have attached my name. I will also speak to my Amendment 12. I apologise for jumping on the back of the noble Baroness’s excellently drafted amendment but I thought there was one element missing, which is what I have added here. This proposed new clause is headed:

“Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel”.


The Committee will be familiar with my long-term concerns about service personnel who were recruited under the age of 18 and those in the services under the age of 18, which my amendment addresses. I think the way the noble Baroness constructed Amendment 11 set out very well the reasons why and how this should be done. Proposed new subsection 3 in my amendment says that the commissioner must

“maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms”.

To address the first point about evidence, I think we are all very aware of this. I know about the situation of recruits under 18 because of the work of the Child Rights International Network and a series of reports it produced. We are aware of cases of women in the military. We can think back to the situation where we saw a big national campaign about Gurkha veterans a few years ago. We often find out about these issues as they are drawn to our attention through the efforts of NGOs, campaign groups and the work of the affected personnel themselves—and then it is splashed all over the media.

That is not the way in which the Government and Parliament should be made aware of what is happening. We need a regular, steady, reporting record that enables political direction to come from both Parliament and Ministers towards the military, saying, “There’s a problem here; something needs to be done about it”. Keeping up-to-date evidence and not relying on the efforts of volunteers and the personnel themselves is very much addressed by this.

I have put this on the record before, but I have to note the way in which the situation of recruits under 18 has drawn the attention of the United Nations. We referred at Second Reading to one tragic suicide case but of course there are many. CRIN tells us that recruits under 18 are tragically three times more likely to die by suicide than their peers of the same age and two times more likely to die from suicide as adult joiners of the military. We have heard complaints about the Harrogate college and 13 reports of sexual assault cases in a year. I think I can probably guess what the Minister will say—that we have to leave this to the Armed Forces commissioner to decide for themselves.