Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

David Reed Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment 5. As with amendment 7, it is good to be able to place on the record our intention for how this process should work.

Amendment 5 would insert a requirement for the House of Commons Defence Committee to conduct pre-appointment hearings and to state a positive or negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. The Secretary of State would be able to recommend their preferred candidate to His Majesty only following a positive opinion from the Committee.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Second Reading debate, during which the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government are keen for the Committee to exercise rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny of candidates to ensure that we appoint the best person to be the independent champion for the armed forces and service families. The hon. Lady’s amendment would certainly set a precedent for wider Government discussion. I suggest that her argument might best be directed in the first instance to the Cabinet Office, given its cross-Government leanings, rather than to the Ministry of Defence.

The Government have said that the pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee should be vigorous and thorough. We expect it to go above and beyond the current process, precisely because the commissioner will report their recommendations to Parliament via the national security scrub in the MOD, so their role is somewhat different from the role of other commissioners who might receive pre-appointment scrutiny from other Select Committees. Their powers are designed to be greater, so a more prominent role will be given to Parliament. We are confident that the existing practices and arrangements in Parliament are robust, that they can address any concerns that the Select Committee may have about a candidate, and that we will be able to take the Committee’s views fully into account before making a recommendation to His Majesty.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The mechanics are different from those for a preferred candidate in other Departments, in so far as the candidate will have to go through top-level security clearance and presumably enhanced developed vetting. If they do not pass enhanced developed vetting, will they still be put forward as the preferred candidate? How will the mechanics work?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member asks a fair question. We will not put forward anyone who does not pass security vetting; it is important that we place that on the record. This is a significant and prominent role. The commissioner will have access to our military bases. We do not expect, require or want them to look at anything beyond general service welfare matters, but there may be locations or people adjacent to those welfare matters that are sensitive to UK national security. That is why we have put national security powers in the Bill and why the Secretary of State has made assurances, which I am happy to repeat, that the commissioner will be security vetted. That is what service personnel and our colleagues across Government will expect. Someone who cannot pass security vetting should not be able to take up such a serious appointment in the Ministry of Defence. I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance; I hope it reassures him.

In his short few months here, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar has established himself as formidable and forensic in his tabling of parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Defence.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope there is no doubt that our intention is that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for the armed forces, and hold this and future Governments to account.

[David Reed]

I seek clarification on one of the points the Minister made about clearances, as I have not heard it in what he has said. Which level of clearance will the Armed Forces Commissioner be required to hold, and will the role be contingent on them holding it? If they cannot maintain clearance, will they lose their job?

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to write to the hon. Member with our expectation of which specific clearance type would be required, but on the second part of his question about what happens if someone loses their clearance, it will be a condition of the role that they would be subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and require the necessary clearance, and in such circumstances they would not be fulfilling the terms and conditions of their role. I hope that gives the hon. Member suitable assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

Commissioner’s functions in relation to service complaints

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Reed Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Would it be possible for the Minister to provide clarification on how sensitive information will be handled? I imagine that, with these extra powers, the new commissioner will be able to take both physical and digital sensitive information. Does that indicate that there will be a need for a new secure physical facility to allow those documents to be stored and a new digital network to allow those digital files to be handled?

[Luke Pollard]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly using his previous experience in the military to carefully scrutinise how this provision will work in practice. I am very happy to write to him about that. It would be set out in the implementation work that the Ministry of Defence is doing at the moment. However, we have a foundation in the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, which already handles much of that sensitive information, especially in cases relating to personnel and their issues, and I imagine that that work will carry on. The Armed Forces Commissioner is also subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and a whole array of other legislation that seeks to ensure the proper security of information. I am happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman on the detail of all that.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

David Reed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Q Thank you, Mariette, for being with us today. Is it possible to go into the timeline of how we have got to this point? You talked about limited powers, and I completely agree with you. From your perspective, from raising those concerns with the MOD and Ministers, how have we got to this point where we are sitting here talking about the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill?

Mariette Hughes: I am not entirely sure I can answer that one for you. We have approached it from two different paths that have converged at a very convenient time. I am aware that the new Government have been pushing this very hard and that it is something they feel very strongly about. I am certainly in favour of it. Separately to that, within the ombudsman community there is a lot of talk about own motion powers and thematic investigations. I think there are only one or two other schemes in the UK that currently have those powers. This is game-changing for everyone. We have been talking about this since I came into role.

When we set up our new five-year strategic objectives, one was around changing our performance, one was around changing the relationship with the services, and the third one was around looking at the strategic and political landscape and how we need to be fixed. What powers do we need to be able to effect real change for service personnel? This has been part of our ongoing conversations for around five years.

[Amanda Martin]

Q Thank you for your service and for doing what seems to be a great job in the circumstances. You alluded to the fact that this has been a long time coming, that you have been pushing for this and that there had previously been no backlog. The aim of the new Bill is to improve service licence conditions for service personnel. I have spoken to a number of them in my Portsmouth constituency, and one of the concerns, which you echoed, is that there seems to be a delta between the people who come forward and the things that happen. How do you see a change in the commissioner role improving things for those who come forward? Some service personnel say that they still have concerns around the trust and whether it will affect their career if they make a complaint.

Mariette Hughes: Trust and confidence in the service complaints system is something that we have been driving hard as SCOAF, and that work would continue. This is what I think is interesting about the commissioner role. When we do outreach visits, I sit down and do focus groups with service personnel, where I kick all the chain of command out of the room and get them to tell me what they actually feel and experience. What is really interesting for me is that in those conversations, a number of issues, frustrations, grumbles and gripes are raised, and they are not the sorts of things that normally become service complaints, because to the individual they do not feel big enough or they do not feel that they have been personally wronged—it is just part and parcel of their service life—or they do not think that raising a service complaint will change it. We have those conversations because it relates to service complaints. It talks about that mental resilience, the things they are putting up with that chip away and then lead them to situations where they feel they have to complain.

Under the commissioner’s powers, you would be able to raise those issues and put those into reports that can be laid in the House and brought into the light—all the issues that people are telling us about, such as their accommodation or concerns around food or policies that affect their families. At the moment, I am gathering that information as good background for service complaints, but the commissioner role would be able to take that forward and say, “This is affecting all three services” or “Actually, it is affecting this service more than the other.” So this really rich information will help promote those welfare things that currently do not have enough light shining on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Q One final question. The Bill makes no reference to the armed forces covenant. Do you think it should?

Angela Kitching: I have not considered that directly. I understand that there is consideration of the extension of the covenant in law. It is really important that we do not tie ourselves to the current legal definition, which is much more limited in the policy areas that it looks at. But anything that demonstrates that the covenant is the promise that the nation makes would be really useful. Among employers, in the healthcare system and in local authorities, it is beginning to be the golden thread that runs through the promise that is made. Anything we can do to strengthen that will be helpful, but I would not want it to be too limited by the current narrow definition of the covenant in law.

[David Reed]

I thank Angela and Ted for being here today. The title of the role is changing from “ombudsman” to “commissioner”. We previously heard that different perceptions come with those different titles. Do you think that moving to “commissioner” is a good change? If not, where are the limitations?

Angela Kitching: I think it is helpful because it indicates a move from a system that reviews the administration of an appropriate action in relation to individual complaints into a wider and more thematic system. For me, that signals that we are not in a situation where the system is only going to be following through individual complaints and that wider representations can be made. It sounds more like the action of the Children’s Commissioner, for example.

I completely understand concerns that the ombudsman groups would have about the fact that, outside the courts, “ombudsman” is the highest way of considering individual complaints. But as long as it is well communicated within the community that the new role and office are capable of doing both, I do not have particular concerns about the change in title.

Ted Arnold: To build on that, the change is to set expectations and make very clear to the community what the new role is and the new powers will be. Angela spoke about trying to influence a cultural shift to make people feel comfortable about going to the new commissioner and take forward not just grievances but other issues up and down the chain of command—best practice, for example.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Q When people leave the armed forces, they state that morale is one of the biggest reasons for why they intend to leave. Do you think the commissioner’s appointment and the powers they will be given will have a direct impact on improving morale and therefore decrease the number of leavers in the forces?

Angela Kitching: At the moment, if you look at evidence from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, they say that the impact of service life on their families, the opportunities that they have outside of service and the amount of pay they have are the things that are currently undermining morale. For family members, it is their experiences of living a service life, so you can see that there is an obvious potential for this role to try to improve that experience.

It is helpful to think about not just the individual complaints, but those wider welfare issues that chip away at people’s experiences of their time in service. The No. 1 reason given by service people for leaving is the impact on family and personal life, so anything we can do to improve that has got to help with the broader morale issue.

Ted Arnold: To build on that, persistent issues with the current complaints system have deepened that dissatisfaction with service life. If we look at the various reviews—Haythornthwaite, Etherton, Atherton, Lyons and those that the Defence Committee has carried out over the years—attempts have been made to address concerns with morale or certain groups. The commissioner could bring a much more robust approach to addressing some of those problems. We envisage, as does the Bill, trying to involve the commissioner in day-to-day military life so that there is a real granular understanding of what those issues are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Terry Jermy]

Q The word “commissioner” means different things to different people. Do you have any views on the use of that title and do you think it is appropriate?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I heard the answers given by the previous panel. I am relaxed about this. What is in a word? We use “veteran” to pick up smorgasbord of individuals. We use “service” for the sector indivisibly. Moving from ombudsman to commissioner does, I suppose, demonstrate a shift in a position. If we use a word from a communications perspective, to get people to think differently, there is utility in that. Having spoken to Mariette about this, although I do not want to put words into her mouth, I suspect she feels she is prescribed in some of her activities by the way that her job has been set up. In moving to “commissioner” we have a chance to think about seeing the new post through a different prism and communicating that well, both to the current armed forces serving community and to those who are to come.

If I may go slightly off-piste, the average tenure of somebody who is serving is about seven years. In that time, most individuals will graze through without ever coming across the ombudsman. Looking forward, one of our challenges—probably a challenge both for the commissioner’s post and for the wraparound of the Department—is to ensure that young men and women who join in the future recognise that function and the idea of a champion who sits outwith the chain of command and gives them a chance to have their voice heard. Thinking about generation Z and beyond, in an area in which agency at the individual level is increasingly important, that matters.

[David Reed]

Q Flipping Terry’s question on its head, could it actually have negative implications in terms of culture in service life and usher in a new wave of complaining?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: What we have to be very careful about, in relation to the commissioner’s role, is ensuring that we do not chase demons unnecessarily. I love the phrase, the bumper sticker, that underpins the armed forces covenant:

“a thriving Armed Forces community that is valued and supported within our society.”

It has five key points: thriving, armed forces community, value, support and society. Some 97% or 98% of the young men and women who go through service have a fantastic time and come out with additional skills, valued by the individual, valued by organisations that employ them, and valued by society for having served. As for support, in my territory, in the charity sector and in some of the statutory service provision, it is about catching those who need support and getting them back to being thriving members of society.

There is a danger that by concentrating on the areas of damage, harm and complaint, we will not have the context in which we see people thrive. Why is that important? It is because we want young men and women to join the armed forces in the future. They have to recognise that there is value in so doing and that service benefits not only the nation but also themselves as individuals. That is the area in which we need to capture the context, I suppose.

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I completely agree. We need as a nation to better promote the narrative that service in the armed forces is good for people, it makes great people; that it does not damage the majority, and there are systems to pick up those who are damaged.

I do not see the commissioner as a threat. As I said earlier, that did worry me previously. Nick and I have both been commanding officers. When I was a commanding officer, who could the soldiers and officers go to if they wanted to talk to somebody outside the chain of command? They could go to the padre, the doctor, and perhaps the welfare officer, but particularly the padre and the doctor because they were independent. The padre or doctor would have to get the trust of those individuals because often the solution was within the remit of the chain of command. They had to get those individuals’ trust so that they could say, “I would like to go back to the commanding officer with this, and then we can see how we can work through it.” For some, that was a tricky hurdle to overcome.

What the Service Complaints Ombudsman has provided, and what the commissioner will provide, is something at a higher level. I know it is simplistic, but it is not dissimilar to those people who can pick up individual and systemic themes that are affecting people. The chain of command has got to get used to it. The role is not that of a federation or a union, which would have been very different and very dangerous in my view. I do not see it as that. It is an opportunity to improve life and to improve trust on both sides. I really mean that.

[David Reed]

Q On that point, how do you think the new role will be communicated downward, from a commanding officer to their service personnel? What level of severity do you think would warrant going to see the commissioner, and how do you think that would be communicated to soldiers?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Service people are intelligent people and they will make an appropriate judgment. The commissioner will need quite a lot of support to manage two quite different things: the individual issues that will percolate up to that person, and the systemic themes they want to investigate, such as poor-quality housing or whatever issues it happens to be. The commissioner and his or her office will challenge Ministers in Parliament with their reports.

As goes communicating to young servicepeople, you now have a separate opportunity. You have someone who will pick up your issues and run with them for you. I think people will get that actually, I really do. I understand that there is a fine balance here, but if intelligent commanders at various levels see issues that really are to the detriment of their people, they will start to have a conversation. People will have to judge it very carefully with this commissioner, but I can see that happening.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would like to tier the answer to this question into political ambition, policy formulation, service delivery and lived experience. You will be looking to the Armed Forces Commissioner to tap into all those areas. On the point that Andrew brings up about lived experience, one of the aspects of the commissioner’s work will be direct interventions with individuals who raise issues that concern them. That is fine and necessary. Part of the commissioner’s function is about dealing with individuals at their individual level.

The next issue, to bring it to the service delivery level, is about whether the system that the Ministry of Defence has set up is sufficient to deal systemically with some of the issues that individuals bring to the commissioner’s attention. That takes you back into policy formulation. To what extent are the current policies—the service complaints system, for example—designed to be efficient, effective and fair? Do we need to look at the policies as well?

The final level becomes a political choice, I suspect. Thinking about the accommodation, we know the answer to this already. We know that service families accommodation and single-living accommodation is not where we would like it to be, but within a finite budget are there political choices to start to address these issues more systemically? The commissioner’s function will tap into each of those four tiers of activity.

I suspect that we will look these things with the commissioner when the commissioner’s report is laid before Parliament. Having the report laid before Parliament and having the opportunity at parliamentary level to debate the report feeds back into the MOD. To what extent will the recommendations that the commissioner makes be manifested in demonstrable changes in the way that the Department thinks? I think about the last eight Service Complaints Commissioner and Service Complaints Ombudsman reports: all of them have said that the system is not effective, efficient and fair, QED, so is the report driving the change in the Department that we seek?

[Amanda Martin]

Q You touched on this, Sir Andrew, when you talked about the size of the job and the role. Do you think that the proposals for resourcing the commissioner’s office are adequate to fulfil those functions? You talked a lot about trust and transparency, and others have spoken about impact. To either of you, is there anything else we need to think about to make sure that the interaction between chain of command and the commissioner is coherent and successful?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In terms of resources, the honest answer is, how long is a piece of string? Would one always like more? Possibly. Assuming the Bill is approved by Parliament, the Government will want to see the first commissioner given a fair chance to succeed. Once that person is in situ and has looked at the scale of the job, they will challenge the Secretary of State for Defence in particular. Given the ability of the commissioner to go back to Parliament, he or she could then say, “I can’t do my job.” I think there will be an appropriate balance struck.

In terms of this business of gaining trust, once again— I agree with the earlier answers from Mariette and others—it is down to the person to really project themselves, to get out, to be seen on the ground and to talk to the various parts of the community. That is how it is going to work. So in the first year, this person will spend an awful lot of time doing that.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I would add that I think the figures in the paper are based on analysis from compatriots in Germany and build on the current SCOAF function, so there is a logic to them. Whether we in the Department choose to expand or contract is probably an issue for three or four years hence.

I really buy the idea of trust. The word I would use is “culture”. I will be interested to see how the commissioner starts to pick at some of the issues we have regularly seen through the Wigston report, the Lyons report, the Atherton report and so on, to start to get at the cultural issues and move towards a more inclusive armed forces.

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: If I could come back for a second bite at the cherry, the other challenge is seeing through recommendations, which does worry me. I have been part of the armed forces covenant reference group almost since it was established in 2010. As part of that, the Secretary of State is tasked to put a report before Parliament each year. Some of the themes are consistent in all those reports—I think that is the polite way of putting it.

How do we make sure that recommendations made by the commissioner are either addressed or properly answered? It goes back to the question of resources for service family accommodation and single living accommodation. We cannot do it at the moment, but we will go on a journey to improve life for families in that way. That is one of the things that worries me, because these things have their moment in court—their moment in Parliament—and then we move on and forget them.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

David Reed Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q Do you think anything is needed to ensure a successful handover?

Abby Dryden: Numerous things are probably needed to ensure success. I cannot comment on those things directly, as I do not have enough experience to comment reasonably.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Q Thank you for being with us today. I should imagine that many of the service personnel you deal with might be physically incapacitated or not of sound mind to be able to raise service complaints of their own accord. Would it be possible to explain the current process you have to raise those issues with the ombudsman? Under the Bill, can you see the process changing with a new commissioner?

Abby Dryden: Any process we have to support the raising of complaints would usually occur, and usually quite effectively occur, through the existing chain of command. In the 12 years that I have worked for the Defence Medical Welfare Service, I have not been involved in an issue where we have been required to go to the ombudsman. In that sense, you could say that the current system is working reasonably effectively. Equally, you could say that there are probably issues that require further identification or require the system to be more easily accessible, but usually the kinds of issues we deal with are things that can be resolved by the chain of command, which has a vested interest in resolving issues presented to us for its personnel and is keen to do so.

[David Reed]

Q Following on from that, are you trained to advise service personnel and families on creating a claim, or are you being advised completely by the chain of command?

Abby Dryden: Part of our contract with the Ministry of Defence states that we work closely with the chain of command but are independent of the chain of command. I would not say that we are specialists in guiding a family through potentially making a complaint, but we are specialists in understanding the delicate and conflicting interests that might be at work in some of the situations that we deal with. If we feel there is a need to refer beyond the chain of command, or outside it, we have a process for that. Our internal management structure scrutinises that on a monthly and six-monthly basis.

[David Reed]

Q And the process that you have now, do you think it will still be fit for purpose when the commissioner comes in?

Abby Dryden: I think it will be a different process, and we will obviously have to consider revising it, but I do not think our viewpoint and our purpose in very many of the issues we deal with will change significantly.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Q You mentioned the issues you sometimes have with this highly mobile population. Do you see the commissioner helping or playing a role in some of those issues? In Scotland, we have recently seen how the moving of forces personnel has caused issues with healthcare and education. Is that something where you could imagine the commissioner playing a role?

Abby Dryden: I would hope so. The arrangements in the devolved nations, particularly in my experience of healthcare, are different, and it is about being conversant and fully aware of how it works in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a call for a nuanced and different understanding that supports some of the issues that present when personnel move to another devolved nation or another area of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

David, you want to make a declaration of interest.

[David Reed]

I have a close family member who works for one of the charities here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Q Thank you all for all the work that you and your organisations do. One of the bits about this Bill that is a development of where we are currently is the ability for the commissioner to undertake thematic investigations into issues affecting the welfare of our people and their families.

Could you give us a flavour of the issues coming forward in the cohort that we are talking about in the Bill to your organisations and how you think shining a spotlight on some of those structural issues might be able to address some of the underlying causes? The purpose of the commissioner is, ideally, to assist in removing some of the barriers, obstacles and challenges that our service people and their families face. I would be interested to get your sense as to whether those structural issues have always been here or whether you have seen changes in recent years that need to be addressed by the commissioner.

Col. Darren Doherty: I would start by saying that much of our work is currently done and our support is currently provided to the veteran and family community. Only about 12% of our grants go to the serving community. That is because we base them on need and, thankfully, many in the serving community do not feel that need until they have left. Of that 12%, much is made up of family support in terms of bereavement and those sorts of things.

I think the situation is changing. In the future, I think we are going to look much more towards causation and prevention, which will be more within the serving community. I would highlight a project that we have recently become involved with, which is funding a training and education mechanism that will look at domestic abuse. That is not just treating or helping to support the victims of domestic abuse through a helpline, although that is part of it. The main part, through a charity called SafeLives, is looking at training and education. Much of that is aimed towards our serving community, through their own welfare officers. That initiative was prompted by the work of our trustees identifying that they thought this might be an issue. We cross-checked that with the Army and they believed it was.

That is an example where a thematic study carried out, or a report by the commissioner, could help identify other areas of need in the serving community where the third sector and in the Army’s case, the Army Benevolent Fund, could intervene and try to get at some of the root causes of these issues. That is where we intend to go in the future, while still providing the same degree of support to meet the need that we do now.

Mandy Harding: We are a commissioning charity in the sense that our grant-making uses commissioning principles based on need. We commission through grants to partners to deliver the outcomes. We do that by identifying need. We are very interested in needs, and any identified needs, because where we can identify the need, that is where we can appropriate the right resources and the right investment. From our point of view, anything that helps with that is very useful.

In terms of what is coming up, we have just commissioned some new work around mental health and wellbeing because of the changes we are seeing. Deployments now are to hostile areas, families have less information and the anxiety is harder for them. You cannot shield children so easily from social media and the news. Families have explained to us that they have tried to shield their children from the news in the home, but that changes the moment they go to school—I think HMS Diamond was probably a very good example of what happened, and the distress that those families felt at seeing that on the news and trying to shield their children from what was going on. There is a change and a shift.

From our charity’s position, we are currently looking at need again. We did a piece of need research of our own in 2019. Professor Walker’s work came in, which was incredibly helpful. With colleagues at Greenwich Hospital and at the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, we are all looking at need. We are working with the RAF and with the RAND research project to try to see what need is there. If a commissioner came in, it follows that we would be supportive of a commissioner who might be able to pull themes together for us, and then we can make the appropriate investments.

The only thought that I would offer from our experience of working with beneficiaries and organisations—particularly when I have done research into need and talked with beneficiaries—is to manage expectations. I think managing families’ expectations of this will be a challenge.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I just have a few points to add. From a Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund perspective, we augment what the service already provides. Much of what we see in the serving community in particular is what the air force has asked us to provide or, indeed, where we have found a specific need that is not being provided for either by the Royal Air Force locally on station or by partner charities.

I would pick up two areas in which we have seen an increase or growth over the last couple of years. The first is in emotional wellbeing support and sub-clinical mental wellbeing. We have a listening and counselling service that is accessed by over 2,000 people a year, of whom 80% are from the serving community. It was originally set up as a veterans’ programme, and it is now dominated by the serving community.

The second area is around children and young people. Increasingly, we have picked up a requirement to support children and young people, not just through after-school clubs or our youth club provision on stations, but through holiday provision as well. Increasingly, we are seeing the need to support serving children. Particularly where both parents are serving—that is increasing—we have picked that up as a requirement, and colleagues from the Royal Air Force Families Federation will be able to help with that.

As far as addressing underlying causes and needs goes, if the commissioner can be part of that solution, as I mentioned earlier, that would be fantastic. Already, it is a multifaceted response, but if the commissioner can come and say, “Here is an issue. This is what we have picked up. Is it being picked up by any other organisations?”—that includes, by the way, local authorities, the NHS and local education authorities—I think that would be of huge benefit.

[David Reed]

Q I echo the thanks for all you do for your single services. This Bill proposes a lot of new powers for an Armed Forces Commissioner. If, down the line, after this commissioner comes in, you take umbrage at how they are conducting themselves, is there a clear line of escalation in the Bill through which you would be able to provide a complaint—either to the MOD or directly to Ministers?

Col. Darren Doherty: I do not know.

Mandy Harding: I am firmly in grants, so I am not the right person to answer that question, I am afraid.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: From what I have seen, it is not clear how that would happen.

[David Reed]

Q Would it be beneficial to have that in the Bill?

Air Commodore Simon Harper: Yes, it would.

[The Chair]

No further questions, so I thank the three of you for giving evidence this afternoon. We will move on to our next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Collette Musgrave, Sarah Clewes and Maria Lyle gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q How do you envisage this Bill improving service life? You mentioned the importance of communications and getting the information to service personnel. How do you see your role in that?

Maria Lyle: I was thinking about that element beforehand. It depends on how the process pans out, in terms of how strategic or how tactical the role of the commissioner’s office is. We want this Bill to be a really helpful change in how military families and personnel are supported, so we want there to be as useful a working relationship with the Armed Forces Commissioner as possible.

For example, we would be really keen to share with the commissioner on a regular basis the information and evidence that we receive all year. There is a rich pattern of data across the sector—the third sector that deals with families—that could be brought to bear in terms of identifying exactly where the big issues are that the Armed Forces Commissioner could shine a light on, perhaps leaning in with Government Departments.

The change in this Bill is the report to Parliament. The armed forces covenant also provides for a report to Parliament every year. That is not necessarily independent; it is Government reporting on themselves. The legislation gives a layer of independence. If we can use this mechanism and get behind it to help the commissioner to have the evidence they need to enact change, that is certainly how we see our role and work with the commissioner’s office.

Sarah Clewes: Just to add to that, I think evidence is absolutely key. If we were to go for a scattergun approach and ask several charities, they would have an opinion. However, is that helpful? The families federations work very hard to provide evidence so that we can find the themes and find out what matters most. That is not to say that we discount other things that may be in the margin, but I think it is so important to have an evidence base on which to make decisions. Otherwise we could just go for a scattergun approach, tie ourselves up in knots and jump on things that perhaps are important to some, but are they as important for others? We need a certain amount of prioritisation, and that is exactly what we have been doing for a number of years. The opportunity to build on that and funnel some of the information upwards for decision making is most welcome.

Collette Musgrave: Just to build on my colleagues’ comments, I think many—not all, but many—of the issues that face service personnel and their families, and that impact positively or negatively on their decisions about whether to join and stay in the armed forces, are fairly well known and have been looked at in the past from a number of angles. As Sarah and Maria say, there is a rich level of evidence already in place. It is a question of using that, but really trying to understand the scale and depth of the issues.

The issues are all well known, and there are many of us who will get behind a certain one at a certain time, or there will be an external event that prompts examination. But it is a question of understanding, across that broad range, which ones are really impacting rather than being an irritation. What is making a real difference, and what is the depth and scale? Getting in behind those issues is where the Armed Forces Commissioner could bring real value. Galvanising all the various bodies externally, and across defence and across Government, to co-ordinate and co-operate to do that could be quite a significant and positive change.

[David Reed]

Q This question is to Sarah. You have mentioned the continuity of education allowance—CEA. This is a hot topic; the rates have just been released, and it is clear that the rates are not going to be enough to allow service personnel to keep their kids in certain schools. Is there a fear that in the transition from ombudsman to commissioner, such issues might fall through the cracks in the interim? What do you think can be done to make sure that their voices are heard as quickly as possible, because this issue is going to play out in the coming months?

Sarah Clewes: That is a really good question. It is a case of dealing with the frustration. As I mentioned, the issue is the inability to make an informed choice. If people are given the information that they need, they can decide which way to go, but when they do not have that information or it comes late, they feel let down again. It is an erosion of the offer; they are not feeling looked after.

This is in the context of busy serving personnel who are not at home for long periods of time to do admin. That is often left to the spouse, who cannot make the decisions because they, too, do not have the information that they require. Again, this is all about feeling valued and feeling as though, if it is part of the offer, there should be a slick process whereby armed forces personnel have been considered and can get the information that they need to look after their children and give them the continuity of education that they deserve.

It is about the package and making people feel valued. It is also about being mindful that people are very busy when deployed on a ship or a submarine, which is the case for the people that we are looking after. Of course, the Royal Marines’ operational tempo is just constant, so there is not time. If there is time to be at home and do things such as admin for the CEA or whatever, the processes need to be really slick.

We have had instances of people coming to us and saying, “This is just too tricky; it’s too difficult. I’ve tried this, and I’ve tried to speak to that person, and in the end it’s too difficult. Do you know what? I’m going to leave because I’ve had enough. It’s too difficult.” That is where we will come in and say, “Surely you must be able to speak to a human being who understands your frustration and who can get this over the line, so that you can go and deploy without being distracted.” A lot of the time, it falls back to the charity sector to help in those ways. Is that right? I do not know, but it is becoming more prevalent that the charities will pick things up, just to take away a bit of the pain. It really should not be that painful. I am not sure if that answers the question, but slick processes, information and feeling valued are key.

[David Reed]

Q It does, thank you. May I open that question up to Maria and Collette—would you like to add any other points?

Maria Lyle: I do not believe that I have a specific concern that the ombudsman being rolled into the Armed Forces Commissioner will make things more complex, or worse. Any machinery of government change will potentially add some time to a system—I get that. I do think there is an opportunity to look at the complaints system itself, and whether it is fully fit for purpose in that change, but I recognise that that is not what the Bill is focused on. My main concern is about whether the actual ombudsman processes are as effective as they can be when they are moved over, so they do not cause problems.

Collette Musgrave: I echo my colleague’s comments; there is nothing substantive that I can add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

Q Finally, I have a question, which I raised on Second Reading, about the relationship with the devolved Administrations where there are devolved areas such as health. How do you envisage the commissioner working with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and across England?

Luke Pollard: Defence is a reserved matter. It is appropriate that this legislation legislates for all the United Kingdom, but we are aware that some of the welfare matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, across the overseas territories—with the exception of Gibraltar, which has a different legislative set-up from the other OTs—they might be the responsibility of a non-Westminster Administration. In those circumstances, we have chosen not to require those devolved Administrations to report or respond in the same way as we do for the Ministry of Defence to be able to lay the report, but we are using the same kind of principles that SCOAF, who spoke earlier, has, which is effectively an agreement that there will be a conversation with the devolved Administrations on those matters. I expect a constructive relationship, as similar roles have with devolved Administrations, but we have not specified a requirement for them to report back or to respond to the commissioner’s report.

What we are aware of, for instance, are issues around service housing at RAF Lossiemouth. That would be the responsibility of the local council in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government. In those circumstances, if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government. I would expect them to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government to be able to deliver understanding, but the legislation grips on the Westminster Government, because defence is a reserved matter in that respect.

[David Reed]

Q Minister, it was clear from Second Reading that there is broad cross-party support for this piece of legislation. From your perspective, how did this Bill come to be? How has it been brought to Parliament so quickly? Who were the dominant voices in forming the nuance of this Bill? We heard from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman that a demand signal did not come from her office, and although it was one of the points on her wish list, it was not one of the main points. It would be interesting to hear from you how this Bill came to be. Secondly, while I have your attention, a point was raised around the single service charities having a clear route to lodge complaints, if needs be, against the new commissioner. It would be good to see whether there is support for that, and whether we can add that to the Bill in the coming days.

Luke Pollard: When we were in opposition, we were looking at the areas where our people in the armed forces and their families were experiencing difficulties. It fed into the broad question: why are so many people leaving our armed forces? Why is there a challenge on recruitment? Why is morale falling, and why has it been falling for the last decade? Although there is not one single reason for those—in many cases it is an aggregation of lots of different reasons—there was a general sense from the Secretary of State, me and other Members of the then shadow Defence team that there was a problem with the offer, or effectively the contract, between the nation and those who served.

We thought that having an independent person with the ability to articulate and advocate those issues to Government would be beneficial. I think that that reflects a concern that in some cases the issues, which we heard in the evidence today, are quite well known. The ability to shine a spotlight more clearly on those issues to prompt action was something that we were quite keen on.

We worked closely in opposition, along with officials in the Ministry of Defence since forming a Government, with the German Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. Dr Eva Högl has been exceptionally helpful in providing not just advice on the legislative underpinnings—she describes her version of this Bill as “perfect”, so it is quite a high bar for us to hit in scrutinising this—but the implementation of how the Bill works. That has given us an idea of how to ensure, when we are looking at a service welfare matter, that there is adequate scrutiny.

Also, by having those reports ultimately given to Parliament, we can avoid the situation that can sometimes happen in this place—where reports are given to Government and then sat on. That is what we are hoping to avoid by routeing it via the Ministry of Defence through a national security scrub, which I think everyone in this room would expect, then having it laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State within a defined time period. I am pretty confident about that.

We also looked at the SCOAF reports from the past that effectively asked for the own-initiative powers. I think it is quite hard for an independent role like SCOAF, albeit within the Government orbit, to engage directly with the Opposition in that respect, but I have been grateful for Mariette’s engagement since the introduction of this Bill, looking at where it can reflect the objectives that she may have for own-initiative powers and how that would work.

That is effectively the origin of how we got here. We wanted this Bill to be one of the first pieces of legislation that the new Government proposed to Parliament, because we wanted it to be a signpost, signal and statement of intent to our people who serve that we recognise that there has been an erosion of the contract between them and the nation, and we want to do something about it. It will take some time to mobilise this office, assuming a standard journey through parliamentary scrutiny. We are hoping that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office will be stood up at the start of 2026, which gives some time for procedures and policies to be put in place, as well as a decent appointment process that includes a proper opportunity for the House of Commons Defence Committee to scrutinise anyone who may be selected at the end of that.

On your second question, I am happy to have a chat with you about how complaints would be made. When we held stakeholder events with service charities and veterans organisations around the time of First Reading, when the Bill was published for the first time, there was a question about whether there should be a super-complaint function; that is, charities being able to raise an issue. In legislation, you normally have to define who is able to do that. We did not want to create an insider group of charities and an outsider group of charities, where some would be able to do so and others would not. That did not feel like the right idea here.

However, we would expect the commissioner to have regular dialogue—structured, formal, informal; however they see fit—with the wider armed forces community to listen to their concerns to make sure that it works. The first commissioner will establish those processes and procedures. It is up to them to define what those are, including complaints procedures and the other normal running of an office like this. We have not specified them in legislation, partly because it is unnecessary to do so in primary legislation, but also because they are the minimum requirements for a proper, functioning office, very similarly to how SCOAF, the Information Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner and other similar roles across Government work now.

[The Chair]

We are up against time, so slightly briefer answers would be welcome.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

I thank my hon. Friend for his really important question. For the past 14 years, we have kicked the can down the road on housing, and I will take it upon myself to put in place a medium and long-term plan that will solve those housing problems as we move forward. There are over 47,000 MOD properties, and we will make sure people get the deal they deserve.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

T8.   Could I ask for a progress update on the recruitment for a national armaments director, the creation of a military strategic headquarters, and the release of the defence industrial strategy, and crucially, will they all be in place and established in time to contribute to the recommendations of the strategic defence review?

[John Healey]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Defence team—it is good to see him asking questions. The short answer is yes.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

David Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

It is encouraging to see cross-party support for the Bill, and it is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber this evening with all four former Royal Marines who have come into Parliament in 2024.

I welcome the Bill. We all share the same goal of improving the welfare and support of those who serve in our armed forces and their families. The creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive step towards providing personnel with a direct point of contact to raise concerns and ensuring that issues affecting service life are investigated and reported to Parliament. However, it is crucial that we critically examine the Bill to ensure that it effectively meets the needs of our armed forces community.

The armed forces play an essential role in protecting our nation, and we must ensure that they are equipped, supported and staffed with the best talent. Having seen at first hand the dedication of service personnel at the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines in my constituency, I understand the commitment of our servicemen and women. However, recruitment and retention are falling short.

Recent data from the Ministry of Defence reveals a troubling trend: last year, the Royal Navy met just 60% of its recruitment target, the Army 63% and the Royal Air Force 70%. Those significant shortfalls underscore the urgent need to enhance the overall offer to our armed forces, to ensure that we can attract and retain the talented individuals essential to safeguarding our nation. That is why we are taking a bipartisan approach to the Bill. We all agree that improving the welfare of our armed forces is essential, and we will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill achieves that aim.

Recruitment is only part of the challenge; retention is just as critical. In the year to October 2023, 16,200 personnel left the armed forces, while only 10,400 joined. That exodus of skilled personnel puts the very strength of our military at risk. At the heart of the retention challenge lies the offer to our service personnel. I served across tri-service units, and I saw that offer at first hand during the last Labour Government and subsequent Governments up to 2015. Although personally I never found an issue and loved my service, as I have become older I have seen friends who have remained in service doing the normal things that we do in life—getting married, starting families and moving to family homes—and witnessed the additional pressures that they have faced. I have heard of the challenges with housing not being up to par.

I know that many of us in the Chamber believe that quality housing and a work-life balance directly impact the desire of service personnel to stay in the military. We must always ensure that our personnel are properly looked after and that their conditions reflect the importance of the role they play. Until we address these issues comprehensively, the retention of talented personnel will continue to be a significant challenge.

It is no secret that since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have all benefited from the peace dividend derived from a unipolar world, which has allowed us to prioritise Government spending in areas outside defence. However, we all know the international threats that we face, and it is essential that our armed forces are in a position to do what they have done best for hundreds of years: defend our country and our interests abroad.

It is essential that we focus on the Bill’s finer details to ensure that it delivers real improvements. Important questions about the scope, resources and independence of the commissioner will need addressing in order to guarantee that this new office will provide tangible improvements for our service members and that the Bill will result in a stronger, more supported armed forces, equipped to retain the best talent to serve our nation.

The commissioner’s role must be clearly defined to avoid overlap with existing military structures. While the Bill grants the commissioner the power to investigate welfare matters, it is crucial that that role does not encroach on areas of military discipline or law. The commissioner should complement, not replace, existing military mechanisms, providing an additional layer of support for personnel when necessary. Other Members have made the point this evening that establishing the rank or grade of the commissioner is essential. We must ensure that the commissioner holds a senior position, but one that respects the operational command and discipline of the armed forces. Although the commissioner will be independent in nature, they will operate in a rank-structured environment, so it is important to establish the grade at which they will be seen among high-ranking military officials.

It is also crucial that the commissioner remains entirely independent of both the Government and the party in power. That independence must be safeguarded not only in the commissioner’s decision making, but in their ability to hold the Government of the day to account without fear or favour. It will be important for the Labour party to set out during our scrutiny of the Bill how that independence will be maintained, and it will be beneficial for the House to understand what commissioner-led ministerial scrutiny looks like.

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), made the point about security and classifications. The commissioner will be granted significant powers to access Ministry of Defence sites and documents, but it is vital that those powers are carefully controlled to prevent any potential compromise of national security or operational integrity. Access to sensitive or operational information should be tightly restricted and permitted only when necessary for investigating welfare issues. The Secretary of State must retain discretion to limit access where national security is concerned, following strict security protocols to safeguard both personnel welfare and military operations.

While the commissioner can investigate welfare matters, it is important that their role does not extend to interfering with military discipline or operational matters. Investigations related to military conduct should remain under the purview of military law. The commissioner’s involvement in relation to wide-ranging welfare concerns or legal matters should be well understood, and we must ensure that there are clear boundaries to avoid disrupting the military’s ability to function effectively.

It is nice to see that the Royal British Legion has lent its support to the Bill—I fully endorse that. I am fully committed to ensuring that the Bill is successfully implemented, but the RBL has raised several important concerns that must be addressed to ensure that the Armed Forces Commissioner functions effectively. Given the RBL’s extensive knowledge and expertise, those concerns deserve careful consideration before the Bill’s final implementation.

The RBL has highlighted that we must ensure that the commissioner is accessible to all service personnel—another point that has been raised this evening—regardless of their digital literacy or deployment circumstances. Relying solely on digital communication risks excluding those with limited access to technology or low digital skills, and those serving in areas with poor connectivity. To address that, we must ensure that alternative methods of communication, such as phone lines or in-person support, are available.

The RBL has also proposed an anonymous reporting mechanism, similar to Crimestoppers, to encourage personnel to raise concerns with confidence and security. While the potential for anonymity to increase reporting is clear, it is vital to strike a balance that allows the commissioner to follow up on complaints and conduct thorough investigations when necessary.

Another point that the RBL has made is that service members may view raising concerns as part of their job or feel that they should handle issues on their own. For the commissioner to be effective, it is important to shift how raising concerns is perceived. The commissioner’s role should help foster an environment in which reporting issues is recognised as a positive and constructive step, essential to the continuous improvement of the service and the wellbeing of personnel. Achieving this will require a focused effort to encourage service members to seek support when needed, without hesitation.

The Bill rightly extends the scope of support to service personnel and their families, but it is essential that that support encompasses all parts of the wider armed forces community, including reservists, recruits and veterans, who each face unique challenges and should not be overlooked. Reservists often juggle civilian careers with military duties—we heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) about some of the problems with that—and may encounter different support needs from regular personnel. Similarly, recruits, who are at the beginning of their service journey, require guidance and resources to ensure a smooth transition into military life. Veterans, having served our country, must continue to have access to appropriate support long after they leave active duty. By ensuring that the commissioner’s office covers all those groups, we can create a truly comprehensive and inclusive support structure that meets the needs of every individual who has committed to serving our nation.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

My constituent Major Charles Milroy, who served for a long time in the reserves, pointed out that on deployment it was often difficult for the reserves to access the support in place for serving personnel. Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that it might help if the commissioner could look into that aspect of military life?

[David Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that concern. That issue definitely needs to be drawn out during the later stages of the Bill to ensure that everyone across the armed forces community—regulars, reservists and veterans—is listened to by the commissioner.

I think everyone in the House agrees that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a positive step towards improving the welfare of our service personnel, but as we move forward it is crucial that we carefully examine its detail to ensure that it effectively addresses the needs of the entire armed forces community. From defining the commissioner’s role to ensuring broad and equitable access, we must make sure that this Bill delivers real, tangible improvements. Only by getting these details right can we strengthen our armed forces, ensure the retention of our best talents and continue to support those who selflessly serve our country. We must work together in a bipartisan spirit to make this Bill a success and give our armed forces the recognition and support they truly deserve.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right. Time and again surveys of armed forces personnel show that poor-quality housing, which would be intolerable in civilian life, is cited as a reason for low morale and an intention to leave the forces early. This is an underlying problem that we will fix. We will not be able to do that overnight but we are determined that we will provide the accommodation and housing that our heroes in uniform have a right to expect.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I completely agree with the Defence Secretary that defence spending must increase to meet the threats we face. Given that the threats are visible and increasing, I found myself nodding in agreement with Admiral Lord West’s recent Guardian article, in which he said we should be bold and move directly to spending 3% of GDP on defence. Does the Defence Secretary agree with his revered Labour colleague’s assertion? If not, why not?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

GCAP is an important programme, and there will be further updates in relation to it as the SDR reports in the first half of next year. In the meantime, we continue to progress the project; indeed, work is continuing across a range of necessary and important defence projects, because we do not want the SDR to be an excuse to slow down progress. At a time when our troops and allies are operating in difficult and contested environments, we need to ensure that we invest in the kit that we need. That is what the SDR will set out: the future shape of the UK armed forces.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

11. What plans he has for future levels of spending on defence research and development.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Defence R&D is critical to maximising the operational advantage of our armed forces. In an increasingly volatile and technology-driven world, the Department remains committed to investing in cutting-edge science, technology and innovation. Just after my appointment to the Department, I was delighted to visit the commando training centre in the hon. Member’s constituency to see the innovative training and capabilities of the future commando force.

[David Reed]

Frontier technologies such as artificial intelligence are already shaping every domain across the modern battlefield. To stay ahead of our adversaries and keep our service personnel and allies safe, it is imperative that we have the domestic ability to develop these technologies. As supercomputing is essential for the development of advanced AI systems, it was disappointing to see the Labour Government pull the plug on the University of Edinburgh’s £800 million exascale supercomputing project. From listening to the Secretary of State and his team, I know that they understand the need to invest in AI for defence, so will the Minister please inform the House how the Department intends to create these technologies when his party’s demand signal to academia and industry appears to be wavering?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. As a fellow Devon MP, I believe it is important that we have a strong voice on defence, so I am grateful for his question. The new Government have been very clear that we see AI playing a really important role not just in defence, but across a whole range of technologies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading on much of that work in his Department. AI and related technologies are being looked at in relation to the strategic defence review, where we need not only to upscale the innovative work that is already being done by UK technologies, but to provide the skills and the supply chain to ensure that we can continue to deliver, learning the lessons from what we are seeing in Ukraine, in particular.