Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. Much of what I would have liked to say has already been said, but the importance that is attached both to reserves and to the contribution they make to the regular forces will, as we go forward, grow more and more. It may well appear in the defence review as one of those key steps that are being taken. If it is, and even if it is not, I still believe that the recognition of the work of the Reserve Forces, right in the middle of the regular forces, needs to be recognised in this particular way. It would be invidious to leave the Reserve Forces outside, as it were, the responsibility of the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments from these Benches. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, felt inspired to stand up and speak on the first day in Committee and that he has now brought forward these two amendments.

On reading the Bill, my assumption was that it included regulars and reservists, but the very fact that these questions are being asked means that it would be very helpful if the Minister could clarify the intention of His Majesty’s Government and, perhaps, think about some minor amendments to the wording of the Bill for clarity.

Some of the amendments we brought forward last week, for example about funding, might look rather different depending on whether we are looking at a commissioner whose remit is, in essence, to deal with regulars or one who deals with reservists, because the sheer numbers are different and some of the concerns might be different. If we are looking at funding the commissioner, and his or her sub-commissioners or deputy commissioners as outlined in the Bill, it would be very useful to be absolutely clear that we are covering reservists as well as regulars, which I assume is the Government’s intention but which is not entirely clear.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, mentioned cadets, which also came up in discussions last week. I assume they do not fall within the Bill’s remit because they are not subject to service law, but are there ways in which they, too, would be in scope?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.

As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation.

I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.

[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.