Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am so pleased that, alongside the Royal Navy, the hon. Lady cites the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, which plays an essential part in our maritime defence and operations. I give her that assurance on the Type 45s’ participation in the carrier strike group. If she would like me to write to her in more detail about the progress on the engine upgrade programme, I will happily do so.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for such a strong statement, which makes it clear to Vladimir Putin that this aggression will not be tolerated. Recently, Ministers were kind enough to answer a series of written questions from me on quick reaction alert, subsea cables and defence of the high north, all pointing to additional threats from Russian forces and the need for a strong response. With the strategic defence review well under way, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that it is flexible in dealing with those changing and evolving threats, and that we learn from Ukraine, and from the recent example of the Finnish ship in the Baltic sea?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is one of the strongest voices recognising that the high north will become strategically much more essential. Degrees of conflict and contest are likely to grow there, particularly as climate change leads to the opening up of the northern passage. If he looks at the terms of reference of the strategic defence review, and the work of the review and challenge groups, which have been an essential part of the external leadership of it, he will see that the concerns that he raises are central to the SDR’s work. When it is published, I am sure that he will find evidence that the caution he gives to the House is taken very seriously by the Government.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is to the discredit of the Opposition that they do not even have a shadow Veterans Minister who could bring up the issues he is raising?

[Jim Allister]

If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I offer these comments as a critical friend. I think it important for people listening to this debate and referring to our proceedings at a later time to realise that, utterly untrammelled, these measures will generate a bureaucracy all of their own. We do not wish this to be a good idea that we have in peacetime that becomes a massive hindrance as we approach a period of conflict.

[Graeme Downie]

I congratulate the new Government on introducing the Bill so early in their term. It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee, along with friends on both sides of the House, and to hear from the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman as well as from charities such as Poppy Scotland and the Royal British Legion. I thank the Clerks and Committee staff who helped and supported me, as a new Member serving for the first time on a Committee of that kind. It was particularly positive to hear the strong cross-party consensus in favour of the Bill, which was supported by both the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), although, like my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), I feared that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) did not support it. I hope that that is not the case. I should add that I did not expect to be discussing the difference between the powers and political structures of the United States Senate and those of this Parliament with the shadow Minister, but it was very interesting and enjoyable.

I understand the need, in fact the duty, of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise legislation properly, but I hope that after today’s debate on the amendments, the House will speak with one voice in support of the Bill and there will be no need for Divisions. This Government have already shown their commitment to our armed forces by awarding the largest pay rise in over 20 years, tackling recruitment by removing outdated policies, and boosting retention through £8,000 payments to certain Army personnel and £30,000 to for some aircraft engineers. They are also doing more to support veterans. It was a pleasure to welcome the Veterans Minister to my constituency last week, where he visited Bravehound and Ghost Force K9, organisations run by veterans to support other veterans’ mental health through the walking and training of dogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about both independence and the need for flexibility. Does he agree that the recently discovered serious problems with service housing might have been addressed better and sooner if there had been an independent figure whom service families as well as serving members of armed forces could approach?

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Housing issues are critical to ensuring that we recruit and retain the personnel we will require for the success that we want our armed forces to have.

[Dr Murrison]

Given the support that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) have expressed for improvements in service housing, which must be one of the principal issues affecting the welfare of serving members of armed forces, what is the hon. Gentleman’s objection to amendment 10? Given what he has said, I should have thought that he would be fully supportive of it.

[Graeme Downie]

I agree that housing is one of the issues that the commissioner will want to consider, and I hope that they will, in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom, but I do not think it helpful to be prescriptive. We must ensure that the commissioner is fully independent and can determine their own priorities, and we should not seek to place requirements on them. Otherwise, Parliament will be dictating to them what they should do. I believe that they—and their staff, appointed through the appointments process—will be more than capable of doing that for themselves.

Amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, seeks to impose a timescale for the implementation of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, like other Members, wants to see the commissioner begin their new and expanded role as quickly as possible, but it is important that this be done fully and correctly. In Committee, I asked Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, how staff would cope with the additional powers that are being transferred. It was positive to hear that staff were excited about the new powers and believed them to be necessary; that is a sign that the legislation is both needed and framed correctly. On timescales, Mariette Hughes said that

“there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q6.]

Amendment 10 seeks to rush that process, and risks losing the good will within the ombudsman’s team. I come back to the importance of independence, and my belief that there must be a culture of independence from the beginning, without artificial deadlines or criteria being imposed. I know the Minister wants to move as quickly as possible with this legislation while ensuring its effectiveness, and I ask him to comment on the timescale, but I do not believe that the amendment is required.

I turn to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, and which is mentioned in new clause 2: relationships with veterans commissioners and the devolved Administrations. Given that I was the only Scottish Member on the Public Bill Committee, ensuring that this legislation is effective for my constituents is one of my key concerns. When I asked Mariette Hughes about this issue in Committee, she was incredibly practical and clearly focused on the need to solve problems with the devolved Administrations, rather than taking a heavy-handed approach. In my view, her approach is correct. She said that she would work

“with the devolved Administrations…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.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 6, Q7.]

In Committee, I asked the Minister about housing, which has been discussed. I was reassured by his response that

“if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Commissioner Public Bill Committee, 10 December 2024; c. 68, Q108.]

That is the kind of constructive scrutiny that I would like to see, and I feel that new clause 2 is heavy-handed in its dealing with the devolved Administrations. An annual report will be presented to this House; I am sure that MSP colleagues of all political parties, as well as Scottish MPs, will be quick to hold a Scottish Government of any political stripe to account when recommendations are made to them.

New clause 2 does not take account of the fact that the power to tackle issues such as housing lies not with veterans commissioners, or even with the Scottish Government, but with local councils, which are even closer to communities. I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, abhors central control from a distant place, so I am sure that he will agree that seeking to control housing policy in Fife or Moray from London is not appropriate. I urge Members to reject new clause 2.

As I said, the fact that the Government brought forward this legislation so early on and the other positive steps that have been taken to support our armed forces and veterans show the commitment of the Labour party and this Government to supporting both. I hope that we can maintain the positive tone of discussions on the Bill to date, and that we can speak with one voice this evening and pass this legislation without amendment.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

May I say how delighted I am to see the introduction of a commissioner for our armed forces and veterans? It is badly needed, and I am sure that the commissioner will be appreciated and will make vast improvements to the welfare of our people.

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for tabling new clause 1, because we have volunteers in the Territorial Army who are highly respected and valued, yet they get rejected when they apply to the Army. They do not feel that they are given any explanation of why they are not accepted by the armed forces, and new clause 1 would address that. It is really bad for morale when people do not get told exactly why they have not been accepted. I truly welcome this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

[Graeme Downie]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says:

“The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.”

[Graeme Downie]

I am very much enjoying the right hon. Member’s remarks from the Dispatch Box, as I always do, but he is discussing an issue that is definitely not within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it would be better to move on to the areas where—hopefully—we have cross-party consensus.

[Mr Francois]

First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected.

This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

UK Submarine Fleet

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The UK submarine fleet has a long and distinguished record, always at the heart of this nation’s deterrence and defence policy. It began in 1900 when the Royal Navy ordered its first five submarines—the Holland class. In 1901, six officers were recruited for the submarine service under the leadership of Reginald Bacon, the inspecting captain of submarines.

Since the early days of the submarine service, Scotland has been at its heart. In 1909, Dundee became home to the 7th Submarine Flotilla. By 1914, the submarine service consisted of 168 officers, 1,250 ratings and 62 submarines, and the fleet was moved to Rosyth in my constituency. Without offending any hon. Members from the great city of Dundee, Rosyth was obviously a much better choice, and it retains a strong role in the submarine story to this day.

The role of the submarine service in world war one should never be forgotten, with five of the 14 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Royal Navy during the conflict being awarded to submariners. Although the focus of naval warfare in world war two is often thought to be the battle of Atlantic, I was fascinated to learn from the excellent podcast “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” with Al Murray and James Holland of the vital role of British submarines in the Mediterranean. For example, HMS Upholder sank around 119,000 tons of enemy shipping. It was commanded for its entire life by Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, one of the most successful submarine commanders of the conflict, who received the Victoria Cross for attacking a well-defended convoy in May 1941.

The cold war saw the submarine fleet play a key part in deterrence and intelligence-gathering capability. HMS Swiftsure, a ship I will come back to later, became famous for her mission to acquire the acoustic signature of the Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, with her periscope raised just 10 feet underneath the carrier’s hull. In the Falklands, HMS Conqueror became the first and, to this day, only British nuclear-powered submarine to engage an enemy ship with torpedoes. After the attacks on the US on 11 September, HMS Trafalgar and HMS Triumph played a vital role in hitting al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. Throughout, submarines have had extensive capability and roles assisting UK special forces in their vital missions.

Today, the Royal Navy operates a fleet of nine submarines, with a little over 1,100 submariners. Four are ballistic missile submarines of the Vanguard class that comprise the UK’s submarine-based independent nuclear deterrent, along with five nuclear-powered Astute class with the capability of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at land-based targets and Spearfish torpedoes at maritime targets. The submarine fleet is spread across the UK. Faslane in Scotland is now the home base for the fleet; Devonport undertakes major refit, maintenance and decommissioning; and Barrow-in-Furness is the manufacturing location of both Astute and the next Dreadnought class of submarines.

At Rosyth, Babcock is undertaking work on the submarine dismantling programme—more on that later, as well—and is also a manufacturer of missile tubes for the Royal Navy and the US navy. QinetiQ, also in my constituency, houses world-class scientists, engineers and technicians, who support our men and women on the frontline by ensuring that Royal Navy ships and submarines remain at the cutting age of technology.

As I have outlined, the role of submarines in history has been varied. Indeed, the flexibility of the fleet is one of its strengths. The role of submarines is necessarily secret, but it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is both critical and increasing. In 2022, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said:

“There’s been a phenomenal increase in Russian submarine and underwater activity over the last 20 years.”

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He talks about the increase in Russian and foreign-state activity in the waters. The role of the Royal Navy and submarine fleet in protecting us from that is vast. I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence last week that the joint expeditionary force will now monitor Russia’s shadow fleet in the Baltic. I hope that work extends to the north Atlantic, where there is a massive gap. Our frontline lies in our backyard, just beyond my constituency and my hon. Friend’s.

[Graeme Downie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In doing research for this debate, I was fascinated to learn about the maritime range that exists off the west coast of Scotland, which is very close to his constituency. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that our forces are defending our entire coastline, and places such as his constituency are vital to that, as are the whole of the west and north coasts of Scotland.

More recently, we have been aware of the ongoing undersea threat from Russia, most recently in the sabotaging of undersea cables in the Baltic sea. Submarines will clearly play a vital role in combating those efforts by our opponents. That is not to mention the critical role of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent and maintaining the capability of the submarine force to support both maritime forces and those on land.

With that in mind, I turn to some of the issues faced by our submarine fleet and submariners, and the actions needed to ensure that they remain at the forefront of our armed forces now and in the future, while continuing to make a vital contribution to our economy and skills development.

I have relatives who have served in the Royal Navy, and I know from speaking to them how difficult the life of a submariner can be. Like other parts of the armed forces, the Royal Navy and the submarine service have struggled with both recruitment and retention. The basic salary for a submariner is £25,000, although it can rise to more than £37,000 with bonuses. None the less, the First Sea Lord has warned:

“We are effectively in a war for talent in this country”.

He also said that

“the submarine service…go through significant periods of real social isolation from the people they love…we must ensure the pressures that are inevitably felt by them are mitigated or eased or supported as best we can.”

Will the Minister say what is being done to support submariners and their families, and what more can be done, to ensure that we have an adequate force for the future?

I turn to future capabilities and the question of whether the submarine service has the right equipment to carry out its role. In its excellent January 2024 report “Ready for War”, the Defence Committee included evidence from Dr Rowan Allport of the Human Security Centre, who expressed this concern:

“Even once all seven Astutes are in service, it is questionable whether the force will be able to sustain their current tasks and the additional deployments to Australia and wider region from 2026 onwards.”

What assessment has the Minister made of that? Does she believe that the Astute fleet is able to carry out the role we intend it to have?

The independent deterrent is a vital service for the security of our country, and we must ensure that it is effective now and in the future. The last Conservative Government left a total deficit of £16.9 billion in the equipment plan for 2023 to 2033, of which the defence nuclear enterprise makes up nearly half, at £7.9 billion. In its report on the Ministry of Defence for the new Parliament, published in October last year, the National Audit Office found key risks in the defence nuclear enterprise relating to costs, skills, commercial relationships and delivery to schedule, and it said that those need to be

“carefully managed as DNE activity and spending increase.”

What steps is the Minister taking in the light of the NAO’s findings to ensure that the DNE is delivering effectively and efficiently?

Finally, as the Minister might have predicted—I have raised this in the House many times—I will talk about what progress the MOD is making on submarines that have been retired from service. Since 2023, the Babcock team at Rosyth in my constituency has been undertaking a demonstrator project to dismantle HMS Swiftsure—the ship I mentioned earlier that played such a vital role in the cold war—in a safe and secure way that protects the environment. That will lead to 90% of HMS Swiftsure being reused or recycled and the remainder being safely disposed of. That kind of work is not being done anywhere else in the world, and it currently employs more than 200 people in my constituency.

There are a total of 23 retired submarines—including HMS Swiftsure—currently being stored between Rosyth and Devonport that could be dismantled in a similar way. Given the knowledge and experience needed, along with the highly skilled nature of the roles, there is an opportunity to use the demonstrator project to establish Rosyth as a centre of excellence for submarine dismantling. From answers to written questions, we know two things regarding those 23 submarines: it costs £8.8 million a year to maintain the submarines at Rosyth and Devonport in their current condition, and the whole-life cost of the submarine dismantling project is £298 million.

I have two specific questions for the Minister about those figures. Can she assure me that the cost of almost £9 million a year to maintain those submarines where they are is not slowly reducing the £298 million budget? Will she work with me, Babcock, Fife council, Fife college and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into the worldwide centre of excellence for submarine dismantling? When will she be in a position to announce the next stages of the submarine dismantling project? That announcement could be vital for the ongoing success of the defence industry in my constituency and its ability to drive local economic growth and provide secure, well-paying jobs for local people.

In closing, I put on record my thanks to the members of the submarine service, the Royal Navy and all our armed forces for the work they do every day to keep us safe. We are living in an increasingly volatile and unstable world and, sadly, it feels like our armed forces will be required to play an increased role in deterring our opponents and supporting our allies around the world in coming years. This House must be united in supporting our armed forces now and in the years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).

It has been welcome to hear a consensus. We talked about the need to ensure that we are supporting our submariners and forces across the Royal Navy and elsewhere. We must continue to ensure that the independent nuclear deterrent is maintained properly, while always recognising the value it has to our local economy. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for your efforts today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The Finnish investigation into what caused the damage to the Estlink 2 cable is continuing, but many analysts conclude that it is likely that the Eagle S was the cause. That reinforces the case for Operation Nordic Warden, which I confirmed to the House in response to an earlier question. It is being run from the Northwood standing joint forces headquarters and will cover a number of areas of interest, including areas where we have British undersea cables.

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

I recently visited HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth in my constituency, a former Royal Navy submarine now being safely and securely dismantled and recycled by Babcock, as a pilot project of the submarine dismantling programme. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme, which could secure hundreds of jobs in Dunfermline and Dollar by dealing with similar submarines at Rosyth over the coming decades?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend will be aware that despite the fact we have had nuclear submarines since 1980, we have never dismantled one, so there is a lot of work to be done. What is happening with Swiftsure is very encouraging and will hopefully provide many jobs in dismantling nuclear submarines. I hope my hon. Friend will be happy with that reply.

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.

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.

Defence Programmes Developments

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

Bulwark and Albion are not capabilities available to the Marines at present. On the Marines, I have said three times this afternoon that the future of its elite force, as part of the complex of what we need for the future, will be reinforced in the SDR. That is what I expect. The decisions that I have announced today are consistent with the SDR. He wrongly suggested that somehow these announcements make a mockery of it, but they are entirely consistent and are taken in consultation with the reviewers. On the future of carriers, in recent weeks my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have paid particular attention to the plans for one of those carriers to undertake the carrier strike 2025 voyage into the Indo-Pacific, where it will have validation exercises with some important allies. It is a vital part of our ability to reinforce both our hard power and our soft power in future.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear both from the statement and from the follow-up questions that the previous Government have wasted millions of pounds in defence spending that could have been spent better, making it clear that Labour is the party of defence. That money could also have been spent better in our economy, to support the defence sector across the UK. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that future programmes will be spent in the UK? What guarantees can he offer to support shipbuilding across this country?

[John Healey]

I am proud of our tradition of UK shipbuilding, including in Scotland. I want Britain’s warships to be built in Britain. My hon. Friend may be aware that we are committed to make the Government’s industrial strategy with the defence sector one of those priority sectors, so that we not only strengthen our forces for the future but use defence to strengthen our economy, create fresh jobs and back the innovative companies that will have a bigger part to play in both our security and our prosperity.

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.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

One of the weaknesses in our system is that the often-excellent innovation, research and development does not get developed, invested in or commercialised, so potentially brilliant small companies do not grow and expand. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not familiar with Planshare—[Interruption.] Ploughshare. I did not even hear the name correctly. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with some details, I would welcome his letter and certainly have a look.

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

Like others on this side of the House, I welcome the increase in defence spending that was announced in the Budget, after years of Tory cuts to our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to increase defence spending in response to emerging threats around the world, from Ukraine to the middle east and Asia-Pacific, and that the figure of 2.5% should be kept under review in the light of changing events around the world?

[John Healey]

Yes, I do. My hon. Friend makes the important point that the starting point for any defence planning must be the threats that we face. At the heart of any defence plans must be the people who serve and on whom we depend. I make that heartfelt point particularly forcefully today, on Armistice Day.