Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

May I, too, begin by welcoming contributions from across the House? It has been a remarkably cross-party, consensual debate so far, and I am sure that will continue. Unlike some who have spoken, my family do not have a veteran, but I grew up for three and a half years on an RAF base in Berlin. It was subject to something called the Berlin budget, which ensured that adequate housing was not a problem, thanks to taxpayers in Berlin. It is interesting that this provision is modelled on an existing German position—that is always something I would welcome, and a country that I have great feelings for.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as this Labour Government continue at pace to put in place more of the many commitments made to my constituents, and others, in our manifesto. The Government have already taken action to stabilise our economy, unleash investment, and reform the House of Lords. For Scotland, the recent Budget saw a record £3.4 billion of additional funding, a pay rise for 200,000 Scots, and many other benefits. In defence, as others have mentioned, the Government have increased pay for our armed forces, delivered an extra £2.5 billion for the defence budget, on top of £3 billion annually for Ukraine, for as long as it will take to defeat Vladimir Putin.

The Bill will help to protect those serving in our armed forces and their families. In the Dunfermline and Dollar region and the wider part of Fife we have a proud heritage of military families, both serving and in veteran communities. From the Royal Navy and Rosyth Dockyard in my constituency, to the former RAF base at Leuchars, now used by the Army, the existing RAF base at Lossiemouth, the nuclear deterrent on the Clyde, and training grounds for commando and special forces units throughout the highlands, Dunfermline, Fife and Scotland know a lot about what is needed to support soldiers and their families, which is why I welcome the Bill.

Forces families face long periods apart, frequent moves, educational changes, housing issues—those have already been mentioned—inconsistent access to healthcare, and sometimes even different tax arrangements within the UK. The nature of the military, with the vital and necessary chain of command can lead, and in the past has led, to a closed shop, and the development of toxic and unhelpful practices and cultures. While some issues must continue to be dealt with by the chain of command, because the role of serving personnel often means that their families must follow them around, there must also be a route that allows them to raise broader issues of concern—something that the Bill will achieve with the Armed Forces Commissioner.

As others have mentioned, we must ensure that living conditions are appropriate for our armed forces personnel, both with their families and when apart. It is unacceptable to expect our armed forces to live in inadequate housing, not just from a health perspective but because that is not conducive to modern family life. I spoke recently to veterans in my community, and they said that sometimes they would just welcome access to adequate wi-fi, so that they can keep in touch with their families when abroad. On a related matter, I strongly welcomed the announcement by the Prime Minister and the Government’s actions with the homes for heroes commitment, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and his ministerial team, for the rigour that I know they are applying to its implementation. I wish we could see more action, particularly from the SNP in Scotland, where I would like to see a much more committed approach to services for our armed forces and veterans.

If we do not begin to address some of these issues quickly and directly, and with the highly competitive career market that we face, it will only become harder to recruit and retain armed forces personnel. In an ever more unstable world, we must ensure that UK armed forces are an attractive employer, not only for those on the frontline but for the thousands of essential staff who might otherwise choose to work in the private sector, in areas such as logistics or technology.

We must ensure that bullying, harassment and discrimination are driven from our armed forces at all levels. Not only is that the right thing to do, and how we make the armed forces an attractive and responsible employer, and not only is it how we build and maintain morale, and recruit and retain staff, but it is also how we ensure that our armed forces are able and ready to fight when we need them to. The independent role that the Bill seeks to establish offers the possibility to create an effective and independent process that will provide people with confidence that they can raise concerns and see an established and transparent process for how those concerns will be investigated and addressed quickly and effectively. I do not welcome the future position of Ministers who must respond to some of these reports, as I believe they will lay bare some of the challenges that have been allowed to build up over years and decades, but face them we will and face them we must.

When the Minister responds, will he explain how the commissioner is intended to work with the devolved Administrations and local authorities inside those Administrations? Where we have another layer of government, we must ensure that it does not fail local authorities—I am, of course, thinking particularly of Scotland. It has taken a long time for a Parliament and Government to recognise and address the different lives lived by our armed forces and their families. It should be no surprise that it has once again taken a Labour Government to take the necessary action to protect our armed forces.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

Thank you very much.

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

Q Good morning, and thank you for joining us. On the point about transfer, how do you envisage the transfer of staff from the existing system operating? I have just a couple of little points after that.

Mariette Hughes: One of my main concerns is ensuring a smooth transition. My staff are quite excited for the new remit. Again, we as an organisation have been pushing for it for a while, but naturally there is consternation and a bit of anxiety about what it means for them. Broadly under the scope of the legislation, if the powers and functions of the ombudsman are simply lifting and shifting to the commissioner role, I anticipate that the majority of my staff will continue operating as usual.

It is key for us that we do not disrupt the good work that has been happening. A lot of my staff have been at the organisation longer than I have, and they remember when the backlog was even worse. They are the ones who have done the work and delivered that performance. It would be absolutely devastating for them to see it disrupted, so ensuring that they have somewhere to operate from, have clear legislation, understand what they are able to do and can just continue as usual will be key.

The other element to be considered is the other side of our business—those who look after our finance, IT and stats. Their roles will potentially need to expand to cover more under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, and that is what needs to be established through a transitionary period.

[Graeme Downie]

Q That is helpful. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to provide additional staff. Do you envisage that being required very quickly, or do you think the current staff will be able to cope?

Mariette Hughes: That depends on the speed at which the legislation goes through and the plans—I noticed that there is an amendment on setting a proposed timeframe. Depending on when you want the office to go live, there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like. Certain roles will be needed ahead of others, and for certain roles, current staff at SCOAF will simply be able to pick up some of the work. We have staff in our organisation who were working for us at the point of transitioning from the commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so they have done this process and will be able to guide it through.

[Graeme Downie]

Q Lastly, how do you envisage the new role working with the devolved Administrations? As a Scottish MP, I am thinking particularly of Scotland. How will the role interact with the veterans commissioners in place at the moment, and do you see any benefits from this role compared with the existing one?

Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. It is all about collaborative working. There will certainly be areas where the commissioner cannot reach in and touch—or have control over—the provisions for service personnel, but it is about maintaining those good relationships. We are all trying to do the best for people, so it is about ensuring that we have those sensible conversations and everyone understands one another’s remits, and that we are able to bring issues to the fore and talk about them as we go. We are already doing some really good work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on uniformed protective services and behaviours. That is the sort of work I see expanding with this, and with the devolved Administrations we just sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Q Lastly, on the veterans point, most local authorities, in accordance with the covenant, have appointed armed forces champions, but I think it is probably true to say—this is not a party political point—that that is very patchy across different local authorities. Some, bluntly, pay lip service but do not really make a lot of difference for veterans. Others really do go the extra mile, particularly in the allocation of social housing. What is your experience, as Help for Heroes, of how that system works at the local government level?

Ted Arnold: I think we would broadly say something similar. It is a postcode lottery in terms of support and how the covenant is applied, and there are inconsistencies with the armed forces champions. Some areas are very good—they have some density of serving personnel or veterans, and they are very aligned with some of those issues—and others less so. That seeps into the whole culture, and it touches on a previous point made by the ombudsman about having someone else to advocate on your behalf on those issues, be it getting the right welfare support or getting the right healthcare support. For many, the armed forces champion is seen as that point, but others have to draw on family and the charity sector to get access to the support that they need.

[Graeme Downie]

Q I want to raise two points, and the first is mostly for Angela, from the issues you have been discussing in the focus groups. Do you feel that the terminology in clause 4 on general service welfare is appropriate and suitable for purpose? First of all, do you feel that the term “general service welfare” itself covers the correct areas? Similarly, in subsection (2) of new section 340IA, which the Bill will insert into the Armed Forces Act 2006, do we feel that words such as “may materially affect” welfare are the correct terminology? Do we feel that is sufficient?

In subsection (3) of that new section, do we feel that a “relevant family member” is correctly drawn? Further down, subsection (7) of the new section states that the Secretary of State will give the commissioner “reasonable assistance”. From the focus groups and the work you have done with your members, is there a feeling that that is the correct terminology? Will that capture everything that they feel the commissioner needs to be involved in, or is there any work that can be done to broaden or tighten some of those definitions?

Angela Kitching: I will do my best with that technical question. I think welfare is a well understood term in the armed forces community. Calling out particular experiences of discrimination, bullying and harassment is useful, because that is not held to be a welfare issue; it is held to be an employment and discrimination issue. On that one, that feels appropriate.

The second part that you raised was about a relevant family member. That really does need significant further exploration in Committee, and further definition. I understand that the Government intend to publish regulations when the Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords, but understanding what a “relevant family member” is has been a really disputed point in the armed forces community. For example, the bereaved parents of people who have lost their service person often feel that they are not included in the world of the armed forces community, and it is the same for the siblings of those who are bereaved. The families of non-UK personnel who are not resident in the UK also often feel outside the environment. The issue is about understanding who a relevant family member is, and being open to the fact that that person could raise relevant information.

Establishing really clearly whether somebody can raise a complaint or a concern—three terms are being used, “complaint”, “concern” and “issue”—and getting clarity over who is allowed to do what is extremely important, because otherwise it will unduly raise people’s expectations that they will be able to follow something through in a formal process, when what they are being invited to do is offer additional information for a thematic review. We need absolute clarity in the way that is communicated to the armed forces community—who has right to a complaint versus who is able to raise a concern or issue more broadly.

The only other thing I would mention is that the process will be everything. I was surprised by the focus groups: we thought that we would collect information about issues that people were likely to want to raise with the commissioner if their scope were broadened, but what people wanted to talk about was how safe they would feel in the process—would they be prepared to raise something, would they be able to do it jointly as the commissioner just raised, would family members feel that they were able to raise concerns and would it affect their person’s career progression or ability to continue to make progress?

There is a high level of distrust in certain areas of current service complaints, for example service-to-type complaints, where people are making accommodation complaints. At the moment, there is already a three-stage process that has to be closed before someone is able to approach the ombudsman. The middle section of that process is so overwhelmed at the moment that people are getting standard messages to say, “We are not able to progress your complaint on the current timelines.” That in itself would be a reason for somebody to be allowed to go to the ombudsman, but they will already have been through an extensive paperwork process to try to pursue their individual complaint before they get to the stage where the commissioner is reviewing the process.

It is getting the balance of expectation right for individuals who are serving and their family members of whether this is likely to be effective and get faster, or whether thematic reviews would be a better place to put their efforts if they have a broader based complaint such as an accommodation issue.

[Graeme Downie]

Q Related to that is new section 340IA in clause 4(2), which states:

“in the Commissioner’s opinion…may materially affect the welfare”.

Is the concern that that word choice creates the possibility almost of a bottleneck being artificially created?

Angela Kitching: There is a very broad invitation in new section 340IA in clause 4(3), which states:

“The Commissioner must consider any request made by a person subject to service law or a relevant family member to carry out an investigation under this section.”

That is a very broad funnel, which is helpful, but the question of how material the impact is on the individual could be the point at which it narrows. It is the question of the clarity of the process. If yours is not the issue that is taken forward from an individual complaint into a thematic review, how will you feel about that? Will you feel that your concerns are being dismissed or that you need to get together many more people to make a similar complaint? There will need to be a high degree of transparency about the decision-making in order for that to feel appropriate.

[Graeme Downie]

Q As I mentioned the ombudsman, can I ask how you think the Bill will work with the existing veterans commissioners, especially in Scotland, and how can we make sure this is applied equally across different parts of the United Kingdom?

Ted Arnold: To build on the RBL’s point in its briefing, it is vital that the commissioner is seen as independent. There is certainly a lot they can draw on from the experience of those independent veterans commissioners throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, it is hoped, soon in England too. They bring valuable knowledge and insight and act as a voice for veterans in the entire armed forces community throughout the UK.

We would certainly encourage that co-ordination between the two agencies, particularly around data and evidence sharing—not just with the veterans commissioners, but other agencies such as the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the defence transition services and organisations in the charitable sector. It is important that the work of commissioners is communicated and integrated as clearly as possible with other veterans agencies. That builds on the ombudsman’s point that those key relationships should be built and the right thematic reviews carried out.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Q We briefly touched on family. It would be really interesting for the Committee to understand what you class as family, given that nowadays families come in all different shapes and sizes. Could you help us understand what your thoughts are on that?

Angela Kitching: Obviously, there are family members—and, from our point of view as a charity, we have a definition of beneficiary that would mean that there was a degree of dependency between the family member and the person who had served, or the serving person, or somebody who is bereaved of somebody who was in service.

In the real world, though, there is often a much wider group of people who feel most relevant to the person who was serving. That could well be the household that they came into service from; it could be the family that they left behind when they came from another country to serve on our behalf; it could be their grown-up children; or it could be the group of people who immediately surround them and offer them support.

The issue is about trying to make sure that, as you are peeling back the layers of the onion, it is the people who are closest to the person who are serving, but not just their immediate household. If you think about the person who they live with, it might be much more relevant to also think about their parents. At the moment, a large number of non-ranking people in service are typically passing through service between the ages of 18 and 30, so they often do not have other immediate spousal relationships. It is their parents or grandparents, whose household they have come out of, who are closest to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Q General, from your past experience with the ombudsman service, what would be your biggest ask of the commissioner in their new role?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: If the commissioner is going to be shining a light on the current welfare conditions of the armed forces community, in a way that enables Parliament to have the evidence for a sensible discussion about the way in which the Ministry conducts its business and makes its choices—about resource allocation, policy formulation and service delivery—then, to have proper teeth, I would want to see, within three, four or five years, some tangible changes in either resource allocations or the metrics that are coming back through the commissioner to Parliament. Unless we see that, there will be no real impact or effect out of creating the post. To get real teeth, we have to have the feedback loop that Andrew talked about, in a way that matters.

[Graeme Downie]

Q First, I thank SSAFA for the work it does in Fife. The work it has done, when I was a councillor and on an ongoing basis, has been incredible.

To pick up on something you mentioned earlier, SSAFA has been around for a very long time, so what do you see as some of the thematic issues that have existed with forces personnel over the years? Where do you think the commissioner should be looking first? Are there two or three things from those thematic areas that they could look at?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I will come to your question. There is an interesting discussion going on. The Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, has commissioned Operation Valour, which is great—both Nick and I have engaged with that—to look at how better we can support veterans. I do worry that we have bits looking at veterans and bits looking at servicepeople and their families, working slightly in isolation. I come back to the point about the continuum: for veterans, setting the conditions in service for success outside is absolutely critical.

In terms of themes and areas that the commissioner might wish to focus on, there are some obvious ones, such as the issue of service accommodation. In defence, during my time, we started off with something called the future accommodation model, which then became the new accommodation model. What is the current term?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Accommodation offer.

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Trying to get something that meets the aspirations of modern servicemen and women and their families has proven quite difficult. So I think that will be an area.

I am very proud of my service. People say, “What would have made you leave early?” I would answer, “Had the services ever compromised on their values and standards.” But I do think there are some cultural areas of shame in the armed forces, and how better we can tackle some of those issues would be another area that the commissioner would certainly wish to look at relatively early in their tenure.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will go back to Haythornthwaite to answer the question. One of the pieces of evidence that we put in the report was about how over time the role of the family has changed, and how family conditions drive individual aspects. I was struck when I took Rick down to visit some of the Blades in Poole. We had a table like this one, with 25 members of the Special Boat Service sitting around it, and the question I posed to them was, “Who is going to be here in five years?” Not one hand went up, so I said, “That’s shocking. Why?” The reasons were family-based: time away from Christmases, accommodation standards and the inability to get spousal employment. The issues that matter are focused on spouses. If we have a commissioner who focuses on one area to make a difference, that should be spousal employment.

I remember, about 10 years ago, taking the decision to bring the Army out of Germany, and selling it to the then Secretary of State, Phil Hammond, as a savings measure, because it was a lot cheaper to have the UK Army based in the UK—for the first time in 300 years. The reason we took the decision as an army was predominantly around the lack of spousal employment opportunities in Germany, to be brutally frank. Yes, there was a change in the geostrategic landscape, but we could not get enough young men—particularly men—to want to serve in Germany because it was going to impact on dual-income families. Spousal employment and opportunities and looking at family conditions would be an area I hope we could unpack in a big way.

[Graeme Downie]

Q On your point about shame factors around the Armed Forces in the past, do you see the role of the commissioner as being essentially proactive and preventive in heading those off?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: That is a great question. I hope the commissioner would, in that space, want to work to support the chain of command. I think the chain of command is trying desperately to get it right— I would say that of when I served. Nobody likes the awful headlines we have had over suicides. Obviously the biggest issue ever was Deepcut, but there have been plenty of examples where those of us who are part of the military community have hung our heads in shame, as we should have, because that is not how young people should be treated.

The chain of command is not complacent; it is doing its best. You need someone who is there to say, “Right, I am going to challenge you,” which the commissioner must do, but equally to say, “I am going to support you, because we are all collectively on a journey to make this part of society and employment better.”

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Can I add a little codicil to that?

[Graeme Downie]

Q I am conscious of the time. Could you answer that question, and include the role that you feel your charities would have with the commissioner in heading off some of those issues on a more practical, day-to-day basis?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will start with the codicil, if I may, which goes back to my beaten record about context. The suicide report is a good example. The report on suicide in the Armed Forces community said that in every sector with young men aged 18 to 24, the Armed Forces were better than UK society. The headline in the paper at the weekend said that young men in the Army aged 18 to 24 are at equal risk as the population to suicide or damage. The commissioner needs the ability to say what it is about the service that is a prophylactic activity. One is too many, but by golly we are doing well.

[The Chair]

May I interrupt you? We are running out of time, so will the Minister ask his questions?

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Q I want to understand how you view the overall welfare services offered by the military? How do you see the commissioner working to improve areas where you might feel that improvement is required?

Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy.

In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

We might return to that on Thursday, but thank you.

[Graeme Downie]

Q Minister, you mentioned ensuring that issues are handled and dealt with, and you said that previously issues had fallen away and not been taken up by the MOD. Would that not make it more sensible to have a duty on the face of the Bill for the MOD to respond to commissioner reports to ensure that action can be taken? Could you comment a little on that?

Luke Pollard: It is quite normal in legislation of this type for there not to be provision in primary legislation. It is certainly the intent of the Secretary of State and me to ensure that provision is given to that coming back, but I am aware of an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in a similar way. I am happy taking that issue and having a discussion about what we can do to ensure that sufficient attention is given to any recommendations.

When we were drafting the legislation, we tried to ensure that where a Secretary of State who has not been involved with the origin of the Armed Forces Commissioner may be in post, they cannot put in place any obstacles to the proper scrutiny of the welfare needs of armed forces personnel and their people. The expectation is that the Ministry of Defence would respond to those recommendations; what we would need to establish informally, which does not require primary legislation, are the methods for tracking the recommendations.

Certainly, as a new Government, we are very aware that many of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee, for instance, to Government over the past decade sometimes have not even been responded to or had information provided back. As part of renewing the relationship between Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, we believe that enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of what the Ministry of Defence does will produce better outcomes both strategically and for our people, so that we will be able to respond to those recommendations from the Armed Forces Commissioner, HCDC and other bodies that report on the welfare needs of our people.

[Graeme Downie]

Q If someone is dissatisfied with the outcome that they have received from the commissioner, is there a way they can appeal it? I think we covered this earlier with other witnesses, when I expressed concern about the decision on whether someone is materially affected being in the hands of the commissioner. What if there is a situation in which someone does not feel that their case has been taken up or that their issue has not been raised? Is there any kind of redress for them to go beyond that and determine why that is the case or to complain in any way?

Luke Pollard: The legislation has been drawn so that the decisions on what issues to take up—effectively which priority to look at and which sequencing issue will be looked at, certainly on the thematic side—are decisions for the commissioner to be informed by. Certainly, for a commissioner of this type, the challenge procedure would be via judicial review, which would be similar for other commissioners of this style if there was a serious challenge.

We are not trying to set an expectation that the commissioner will be able to undertake a thematic investigation immediately into every major topic. We have seen from the German model that the annual report may contain a large number of items or areas where they have received a form of representation—the German model calls it a petition, which does not quite work in the English translation—or where someone has written to the commissioner to raise a concern that is then used as a way of inputting feedback for the commissioner to make a decision on what to analyse. Clearly, given the quite considerable breadth of issues that fall under a general service welfare matter, quite a lot could be in there.

I am grateful to colleagues for raising particular concerns, such as housing and SEND. There is a lot that could feature. We have drawn the legislation purposefully so that that decision is made by the commissioner; it is not made by Government Ministers directing where it should be. It is for the commissioner to establish those procedures, and I would expect the first commissioner to do that.

[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.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from –

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the armed forces; and

(c) any other government bodies

and shall be free from any influence or interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from any interference in the carrying out of their duties.

Amendment 8 has been tabled to facilitate a debate on how truly independent the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner will be from the Ministry of Defence. The Committee may recall that this topic cropped up a number of times during our public evidence sessions on Tuesday. A number of Committee members asked witnesses about the extent to which the new Armed Forces Commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, would be at arm’s length from the Department and therefore able to exercise truly independent judgment.

The two generals, as opposed to the three tenors—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; I had the privilege of serving with both at the Ministry of Defence—both commented on this point. General Gregory in particular stressed that whoever takes up the commissioner’s job would have to work hard to earn the trust of members of the wider armed forces community. He suggested that one good way of doing that would be to get out and about—make visits to garrisons, naval bases and air fields to meet service personnel and their families and to hear their concerns face to face. There is an old infantry saying: “Time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted.” This would perhaps be another good example of that principle in action.

One reason for the concern is that the Armed Forces Commissioner and their office, including their staff, will be funded by the Ministry of Defence rather than by Parliament. I am mindful of the old saying: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To draw an analogy, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who are elected by this House to hold the Department to account, are paid for by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on behalf of the taxpayer and not directly by the Government. I would also draw an analogy with what has happened to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

Under the previous Government, the OVA was deliberately set up as an entity outside of the Ministry of Defence, having its home in the Cabinet Office and with a very proactive Minister in the Cabinet in Johnny Mercer. He was able to not only hold the Ministry of Defence to account in Government but liaise with other Government Departments that had an important influence on veterans’ affairs. As an example, the Department of Health and Social Care is obviously very important to veterans. Once they leave the armed forces they are no longer reliant on the Defence Medical Services for their medical needs, and they transition to the NHS. The decision by the incoming Government to take that office and roll it back into the Ministry of Defence has led to some criticism, including from the veterans community themselves. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Efford, I might return to that in more detail under new clause 2.

For now, I remind the Committee that on multiple occasions on Tuesday the word “trust” was used, both by witnesses and members of the Committee questioning them. I ask the Minister what he can do this morning to reassure the Committee that the Armed Forces Commissioner, who, we understand from Tuesday’s session, is not likely to be up and running until early 2026, is going to be able to win the trust of service personnel and their families. Will the commissioner truly be in a position to act independently on their behalf and in their best interests? I hope the Minister can understand the context in which these questions are being asked. I eagerly look forward to what he has to say.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make a couple of small points. I have worked with ombudsmen in the past; ultimately, as we heard in the evidence earlier this week, somebody has to pay for an ombudsman. Often that is funded in other ways. I have previously worked with the energy ombudsman, whose funding comes from the energy companies. It is important to put that on the record.

Furthermore, just because an amendment says that someone is independent, that does not make it so. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, building trust will be crucial for the person in this role. Later clauses make clear the independence the commissioner will have—whether that is their ability to enter premises without notice, should they see fit, or to consider a range of different requests. My feeling is that the intent of the amendment is already covered by the Bill. It is important that we make sure that the commissioner builds that trust, as was pointed out by several witnesses on Tuesday.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I want to make a point about the wording of the amendment, which reads:

“The Commissioner shall operate independently from”.

Reviews that I have conducted of the powers of other commissioners do not explicitly state that. There are many special interest commissioners these days, so this would be an unusual provision in that regard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, I think the building of trust is essential to the smooth operation of the commissioner’s work with the armed forces and their families, which we so badly need. But that will be done in so many ways through the office of the commissioner. I do not think it would depend on this particular amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think the difference between the American system and the British system is stark, not least because of the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this place.

As the Minister has outlined, there is obviously a role for the Defence Committee to pass an opinion. That is our convention, and I think it works very well, in addition to the scrutiny we see from Members of all parties. If that became a problem, I am sure that both Opposition and Government Members would be tabling written questions, motions and whatever else. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was clear that his Committee would look carefully at that. There is a strong difference between the American system and the British parliamentary system in that regard.

The full independent public process that will be followed for the appointment is another key difference. It is unlike the US system, which has a presidential appointment and under which there is no vetting; anyone can be appointed. We therefore have an additional stage of security, both for public and for parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that amendment 5, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not a lawyer myself, but if someone goes into court it is handy in certain circumstances to have a KC’s opinion. I hope that the hon. Member for North Durham and the Committee can follow the rationale of what we are seeking to do.

[Graeme Downie]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

At this point, I give way—hopefully it will save the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar the trouble of tabling multiple parliamentary questions.

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to schedule 1 on page 10 of the Bill. It specifically says:

“The Secretary of State may…provide staff in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State by the Commissioner”.

My reading of that is that the commissioner, should they wish to, would be able to hire a King’s counsel for specific issues. At the same time, it would preserve the independence of the commissioner: we would not be putting anything into the Bill to make Parliament direct them, and we could make sure that independence was maintained.

[Mr Francois]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his accurate reading of the legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the legislation is drafted to be facilitative. For instance—we will come to this later—it does not necessarily define exactly what are and are not “general service welfare matters”. It provides a broad remit. But for the reasons that I hope I have been able to articulate, we believe that although the schedule that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would facilitate the Armed Forces Commissioner in seeking to appoint a legal adviser, that would have a spending implication. It could be—it is not inconceivable—that some in the Ministry of Defence would baulk at that. The intention of putting the provision into the Bill is to include beyond peradventure the right of the commissioner to seek to appoint a senior legal adviser. In a sense, it does not compel the commissioner to do that, but it gives them that power very clearly.