Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent maiden speech, particularly her relevance to the subject and her background as coming from an Army family.

I also reiterate the statement from my noble friend Lady Goldie that we on these Benches will approach the Bill as critical friends. We have heard many excellent speeches from around the House, and I am sure that the Minister, as is his custom, will pay particular attention to the concerns that have been expressed—which are guarded concerns, because, in general, the whole House supports the Bill.

All noble Lords wish to see the highest standards of welfare for our Armed Forces personnel. We owe them a constant debt of gratitude, and the least that we as parliamentarians can do is to ensure that they are treated with the respect they deserve. As has been noted by many noble Lords, including by my noble friend Lady Newlove, morale in the Armed Forces is not where we would like it to be. More must be done to make certain that their legitimate concerns are effectively addressed.

If implemented correctly, the new commissioner should pave the way for greater oversight and transparency. However, as we have heard, success depends on the detail. My noble friend Lady Goldie has eloquently and clearly set out the Opposition’s position on the Bill. I will not dwell on the points that she has made, so as not to detain the House much longer, but there are three issues I would like to focus on.

The commissioner, as noble Lords have highlighted, will need independence, resources and power. As was mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks, independence from the Ministry of Defence is crucial. Effective oversight of the service complaints system and service welfare matters occurs only if there is no intervention from vested interests. However, this does not mean that the commissioner should be entirely independent from Parliament. Just as the commissioner will hold the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces to account, Parliament must be able to hold the commissioner to account. As drafted, there is no scope for this in the Bill. It is an important omission given that, as other noble Lords have said, the policy is founded on the example of the German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces. Despite this, the commissioner we are presented with in the Bill is noticeably different from the German commissioner.

The German parliamentary commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, and nominations are made by the defence committee and parliamentary groups. The candidate who receives the majority of the votes cast is then duly elected and appointed by the president of the Bundestag. The remit of the German commissioner is established in Article 45b of Germany’s Basic Law, which states:

“A Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces shall be appointed to safeguard basic rights and”—


as an auxiliary organ to the Bundestag—

“to assist … in exercising parliamentary control”.

To do that, the commissioner may take action based on their own initiative and discretion, or at the direction of the Bundestag or the defence committee.

The German parliamentary commissioner is therefore entirely independent of the armed forces but also ensures that the German parliament exercises a high degree of oversight, guaranteeing the accountability of the armed forces. The German model has a greater degree of parliamentary involvement than the model presented in the Bill. It would not be unique to make this commissioner closer to Parliament. There is precedent in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government have taken that decision and what the reasons are for not including a stronger role for Parliament.

My second point is on resource. We know that the commissioner will cost more than the current ombudsman. The Explanatory Notes mention an estimated cost of between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—compared to the current cost of approximately £1.8 million. Will that extra cost be funded by the Ministry of Defence, or will it come from a separate pot of funding? I can see that the Minister has noted my question and will deal with it in due course.

Thirdly, there are a number of vagueries in the Bill. Proposed new section 340IA states the commissioner will investigate “general service welfare matters”, but what that includes is not overly clear. If, when the Minister rises for his closing remarks, he could offer greater clarity on the type of issues that could be investigated, that could be of benefit to the whole House. As other noble Lords on all sides of the House have mentioned, it is also unclear what is meant by “relevant family members”. We know this will be left to secondary legislation. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said:

“The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/24; col. 116.]


I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, but it does not appear that this draft definition has yet been published by the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell the House when this draft might appear? As we enter Committee, it would be useful to have some indication from the Government of their intentions.

By addressing the issues that have been raised by noble Lords today, one hopes that implementation will be efficient and effective. As the Bill progresses, the Opposition will continue in the constructive manner that has been outlined today. We will not shy away from challenging the Government when necessary, as is the duty of the Opposition, and we will push for clarifications and changes that we believe are needed to ensure that our forces receive the treatment they deserve. Their sacrifices are an example to us all and we owe them nothing less than our best.