National Armaments Director

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is welcome that this debate focusing on the remit of the national armaments director comes, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, as the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit, where we are likely to see greater focus and action on the need to increase defence spending. However, as this Government have said, this is not all about numbers on a spreadsheet or a press release, and the national armaments director will allow the UK to focus on how defence money is being spent to increase the lethality of our armed forces and ensure that the deterrent effect of the combined UK armed forces is sufficient to prevent a war that no one in this Chamber wants to see.

The position shows that our Government are delivering the change we promised: greater coherence and a strategic focus on our procurement and industrial planning, cracking down on waste and boosting Britain’s defence industry. I want what I am sure others in this House want, which is for us to move as quickly as possible, because only by doing so can we make sure our adversaries know that we are committed to our own defence. I want to raise three specific issues, and ask the Minister to provide clarification and assure me that these will be among the first priorities for the armaments director and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence.

First, looking at a globe rather than a flat map shows the strategic reality the UK faces as well as the importance of Scotland’s position. From the High North, Russian ships and submarines can threaten NATO, merchant shipping and, crucially, underwater cables in the Atlantic. The strategic defence review highlighted the need for

“improving NATO’s deterrence…in Northern Europe and the High North.”

Recently, NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, emphasised

“a larger role for NATO in the High North.”

This very much makes the UK, and Scotland in particular, a frontline nation in combating Russian aggression. To do that, the SDR spoke of the need for:

“An ‘always on’ supply line for shipbuilding”,

with the Royal Navy continuing to move towards

“a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet”.

The Type 31 frigates being built by Babcock at the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency would seem to fit the bill for that kind of move, along with providing the requirement for an “always on” supply of shipbuilding. The first Type 31, HMS Venturer, was recently floated off, and the other ships of the initial five ordered by the Royal Navy are progressing well. I will take this opportunity to once again thank the workforce at Rosyth for the incredible contribution they make to our nation’s defence in the construction of the Type 31, as well as the other incredible work they do for us and our American allies. Can the Minister confirm that the armaments director will urgently consider the need for more Type 31 frigates to reflect the flexibility of this platform as well as the lower cost and faster production that the incredible workforce at Rosyth have been able to deliver?

Secondly, there have been many discussions in this place, particularly those led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), on the need to improve the UK’s air defence capability. This has been a key theme of the ongoing Sky News podcast “The Wargame”, created by a range of defence experts and advisers. I have certainly been listening to it over the last couple of weeks, although I think I am a few episodes behind at the moment. Improving that capability will require a number of solutions in collaboration with NATO and other allies, but it has been suggested that the future air dominance system and Britain’s next-generation Type 83 programme could be part of countering the emerging threat from hypersonic missiles. With the increased prominence of this type of threat visible in both Ukraine and recent conflicts in the middle east, can the Minister please provide an update on those programmes and on how the armaments director is likely to prioritise this important work?

Finally, as part of our increased defence spending, it is vital that we make defence an engine for growth, boosting prosperity, jobs and growth in every corner of the UK. We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries, and to make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. That means engaging all parts of society and business, including the growing network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises and skilled manufacturers in my constituency, in Fife, and across Scotland and the rest of the UK.

This week, we heard from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about the exciting prospect of a defence growth fund, which could bring together different bodies to deliver on their combined objectives of economic investment and improved defence. In my area, that could include opportunities for Fife council and Fife college, both of which could play a much larger role in delivering on defence and providing the skills and training that our young people need and deserve.

I have raised this topic numerous times in this place. We have seen the total failure of the SNP Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment; and even more ridiculously, the SNP responded to a request for medical aid from the Ukrainian Government by dictating that the aid could not be used on military casualties, a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. That position puts Scotland’s security at risk, and reduces opportunities for young people in my constituency.

Will the Minister provide an update on her discussions with the Department for Business and Trade on the defence growth fund and how it will benefit people in Scotland—something that the SNP has failed to do so far? This Government have responded brilliantly to the global threats that the UK faces, building alliances and partnerships across the world, creating the national armaments director, and undertaking the reorganisation that we have heard about today and in previous statements. I just hope that we can accelerate down that path as much as possible, to ensure that we deal with those threats, as the British public expect us to.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.

It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.

I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns. Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.

Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make.

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

The Minister mentions family members and other individuals raising complaints, but some of the complaints will be about devolved issues such as health, education and other issues that affect families. Can he reassure me that the Armed Force Commissioner will have an effective method of working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the concerns of armed forces across the UK can be addressed?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is right that defence is a reserved matter, and so it is appropriate for this place to introduce a UK-wide Armed Forces Commissioner. It is also right that whoever is appointed to the role of Armed Forces Commissioner is able to raise issues of concern with the Administrations in every part of the United Kingdom—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Equally, they should be able to engage with local councils. The Armed Forces Commissioner role builds on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, who already has a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations, so I am certain that whoever is appointed to role will be able to build on that and make sure that, for instance, if a housing issue is highlighted by someone based in Scotland, that can be raised with the appropriate individuals in the Scottish Government.

Lords amendment 7 will ensure that the language in section 340N of the 2006 Act is also updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is no inconsistency in the legislation.

I will now turn to Lords amendments 2 and 3 and the debate that took place in the other place about whistleblowing. I thank Baroness Goldie, one of the previous Defence Ministers in the House of Lords, in whose name the amendments were tabled, for her characteristically considered and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage and for raising a serious issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new general function for the commissioner

“to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members,”

and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this Bill.

We believe that the amendments, while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matter that they choose; anyone can raise an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie’s amendment; and the commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence, and reports directly to Parliament and not to senior officers nor to Ministers.

Strategic Defence Review

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

As Chair of the PAC, the hon. Gentleman knows the problem with the previous Government’s defence equipment plan. As I said in my statement, the work on a new defence investment plan will be completed and published in the autumn.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The review puts shipbuilding firmly in the UK’s future defence plans, particularly in the high north, as I have mentioned in the House many times, and looks towards a Royal Navy that is powerful, cheaper and simpler. The workforce at the dockyards in Rosyth, in my constituency, is ideally placed to deliver this. Just last week, we saw the roll-out of HMS Venturer, the first Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is committed to shipbuilding in Scotland, including in my constituency, in contrast to the SNP, which just this week turned down the opportunity to bring new skills to that sector in Scotland?

[John Healey]

We are totally committed to shipbuilding in Scotland. I pay tribute to the workers in his constituency in Rosyth for their pride, professionalism and sense of purpose, and the contribution that they make to our national security.

UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman has managed to broaden his question from this specific statement on the overnight strikes. The strategic defence review is a strategic defence review. It will be published in the spring. It has been an unprecedented and externally led process, which has allowed to us to take stock of the threats we face and the capabilities we need, and to do so within the unprecedented increase in defence funding that this Government have now committed to over the next 10 years.

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

In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to Russian attempts to support Houthi operations. Without compromising any information that he is unable to share, how would he rate the effectiveness of those Russian interventions, as well as the UK response? Does he agree that they show that we must continue to support Ukraine in every way we can to undermine the dictator Vladimir Putin?

[John Healey]

It does indeed, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend has been steadfast from the Back Benches as a strong voice for Ukraine, and I welcome his support for the actions the UK Government have offered, and for our leadership. On the effectiveness of Russian action and interventions in Yemen, I am more concerned to ensure that any military action that this Government sanction is effective, and that the outstanding military personnel who are involved return safely. I am happy to report to the House that that was the case last night.

Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), both for securing this debate and for opening it in the way that he has. Well done! I know that this is an incredibly important subject to him, and during his retelling of Paddy’s activities in war, I could almost see the “Commando” comic from my childhood before me.

I do not intend to speak for too long; this will be really just a long intervention. When the hon. Member for Strangford asked me to support this debate, I did not really know who Paddy Mayne was. While the hon. Member is a lovely guy, his politics can sometimes be a little bit dodgy, so rather than saying yes on the spot, I decided to do some homework. I could see quite quickly that the case was strong, and I felt bad for even having to research it. When I got home that week, I spoke to my son, who quietly pointed out that we had watched the TV programme about Paddy Mayne together, and that he had also bought me a book about Paddy Mayne for Christmas. I have still not read it—do not tell him.

The week after that, I visited Redford barracks in Edinburgh South West. I met a serviceman there from Northern Ireland, and I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought. He was offended that I even had to ask him about it, because he felt the case was so strong. While I do not speak for him, he was a little bit upset about the way in which Paddy was depicted in the second series of “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, and made the point about the language specifically. I have asked residents in my constituency what they thought about today’s debate and what the trajectory should be, and overwhelmingly, people got back to me saying that the case was strong. There was a real feeling that Paddy was overlooked because he was sometimes forthright in his opinions, because he sometimes challenged authority—which is not always a good thing in the forces, I guess—and above all, because his face sometimes did not fit. One of my constituents said to me that Paddy deserves the Victoria Cross, and if he wins it, that will be a victory for all the people who were overlooked because they went to the wrong school or came from the wrong background, and had that counted against them.

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

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to do research. The podcast “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” gives a much better introduction to Paddy Mayne. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at the rules of recognition for those serving in the special forces, and ensure that some of the difficulties that will arise in publicly recognising those very brave troops are taken into account?

[Dr Arthur]

I will try to listen to that podcast on the train home this evening. The issue about those in the special forces often comes up, but I have absolute trust in them to follow the rules of engagement and the rules of war at all times, and I respect them and all our armed forces for the work they do.

To conclude, we are not here to demand that Paddy gets a VC, or to demand that he gets it on behalf of all others who have perhaps been overlooked—particularly not this year, the 80th anniversary of the second world war. We are saying that it is time to look at the issue with fresh eyes. That should be done through a formal process—not here in this House, but by people who understand the matter much better than us—to ensure that a fair decision is reached. The hon. Member for Strangford has been clear about what that fair decision should be.

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in such a well-informed and passionate debate. Three years on from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the courage of the Ukrainian people is an inspiration to all of us. I was at the Munich security conference, where it felt like the world changed around us, and significant consequences flow from it. It is clear that any settlement negotiated solely between Trump and Putin would not be a dignified and secure peace for Ukraine. As democratically elected President Zelensky has said, there can be no peace in Ukraine without Ukraine, and no peace in Europe without Europe. European leaders, including our Prime Minister and our Parliament, rightfully stand in full solidarity with him.

With its war machine in full swing, we know that Russia would not stop with Ukraine, given the opportunity, and we must be clear that this is about security for the UK, too. Our Prime Minister is doing vital work in Washington DC today, with that in mind. The dramatic divergence of US and European approaches really matters, and we have to be clear about how many other countries now have an interest in Ukraine. With 12,000 North Korean troops on the frontline, Iranian drones being used and technology being provided by China, we are not just up against Russia in Ukraine; this is about a group of states that are seeking to disrupt an already fractured global order. Securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine has become the defining test of who our allies are in the world, and how far we are willing to go to defend the values of freedom, democracy and sovereignty that unite us.

The last three years have seen 2,236 attacks on healthcare facilities in Ukraine—the most ever recorded by the World Health Organisation in a conflict. These attacks have increased in the last year and now occur almost daily.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that when this conflict ends, we must examine closely the potential use of chemical weapons by Vladimir Putin during this conflict, as he has previously used them in Syria and other conflicts? Some of us who were on the trip that has been discussed saw that at first hand in hospitals.

[Melanie Ward]

I absolutely agree; accountability is essential.

More than a decade ago, Putin tested the tactic of attacking hospitals in his operations in Syria, and the world stood by. The message about impunity spread, and we have subsequently seen the same tactics used by other forces in Gaza and Sudan, and now by Putin in Ukraine. Children should never be targeted in war, and the International Criminal Court has an arrest warrant out for Putin for his deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.

The stability and prosperity that we have enjoyed in our part of the world for the last 80 years cannot be taken for granted. It was fought for, literally. Democracy does not just happen. We have to want it, value it, work to keep it and protect it, and we have much work to do in that regard. In my previous work in war zones across the world, I often returned home with the sense that conflict and disaster can happen anywhere. That is why we need to support our global institutions now more than ever—institutions such as the United Nations, and the framework of international law put in place after world war two. If we value those achievements, we must uphold and protect them.

Our Government are absolutely right to increase defence spending rapidly. I have seen too many times as a former aid worker what happens when Governments fail in their most basic duty: keeping their country safe. Of course, funding this increase in defence spending through the aid budget is painful, and I say to those in the international development community in this country and elsewhere that I and others feel the pain. Given the scale of external threats, we should all understand that further painful decisions of a different kind may come in the future.

I end by paying tribute to the Ukrainian refugees I met in Kirkcaldy in my constituency a few weeks ago. We owe it to those refugees, and to all who have fought for Ukraine, the UK and Europe’s freedom, to now do whatever it takes to defend our shared freedom and security.

--- Later in debate ---

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

A pile of dark brown mud next to a hole in the ground; a hole framed by planks of wood covered tightly in smooth, matt-black sheeting; four rough wooden handles jammed in as the mud hardens around them, with invisible silver shovels buried beneath—a pile of mud and four shovels in the sharp, harsh, dry cold of Lviv: that is the image that I have had in my mind for every waking minute of every day since Saturday morning. It is the picture of a newly dug grave in the cemetery of heroes in Lviv, Ukraine, as mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). For me, that image encapsulated the four-day trip from which I and other MPs from across the House returned earlier this week. It might sound an unusual thing to say, but this graveside was not simply one of sorrow, nor just of pride, nor just of memory; it was one of defiance and resolve.

That image encapsulates for me the emotions of all of the people of Ukraine. They have taken the punishment dished out by a criminal dictator-bully for three years. They have not only withstood the daily bombardments, but thrived underneath their air defence umbrella. In a position where every day represents a struggle for survival to the next, Ukraine has been able not only to fight and reach the next day, but to plan for a prosperous future. In health, education, technology, cyber-security, the scaling of innovation and in culture, the Ukrainian people are shaping their long-term future even as they take to shelters every night. This is not just “Keep calm and carry on”; this is “Keep calm, win the present and build the future.”

The Ukrainian people want peace—of course they do—but they will not accept peace at any price. We asked over and over again, “What message do you want us to deliver back to our country and our Parliament?” The answer was always this, something so simple and obvious that it is hard to believe it has to be restated: “Russia has conducted an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine—Russia is the aggressor; Ukraine the victim.”

We have had 20 years of warnings, from the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 to the first invasions of Ukraine and the public poisonings in Salisbury, and then finally the full-scale invasion of our ally.

[Melanie Ward]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Russia’s past behaviour, with Putin seeming to sign up to agreements but then not following them, is precisely why security guarantees for Ukraine’s future are so important?

[Graeme Downie]

I could not agree more. I grew up in Berlin during the cold war and could hear Russian artillery and helicopters practising on a live firing range, so that has always been present since I was very young.

We must not misunderstand the gravity of this moment. Geopolitical stability and security will be the defining issue for this generation and this Parliament. It is incumbent on us to do whatever it takes to keep British people safe at home and abroad and to support our allies. That is why I fully welcome and endorse the decision this week by the Prime Minister on defence spending increases. However, as I argued in this House in December, 2.5% and even 3% should be seen as a floor for our defence spending, not the ceiling.

This Government have already taken one difficult decision and there may well be more to take in the future. I suspect that before long the Government may conclude that they must go even further or faster, or both. If they do so, they will have my full and total support. That is not to crave the spending; it is to accept the reality of the world we live in, not the world as we would wish it to be.

While the public clearly support the increased spending on defence, it is incumbent on all of us in the House to ensure that the reality of the danger and threat that this country faces is brought home, as is the fact that this might mean even tougher decisions very soon. While a war in Ukraine might feel abstract, as I saw over the past few days, that war can very quickly come to these shores, and in a variety of ways. The mission of all sides of this House is to maintain that unity and communicate that reality and to bring the public with us on a long-term journey that will be difficult.

With the 100-year partnership agreement signed by this Government, we have the foundation of a long-term relationship with a country with which we share so much, and with which we are standing shoulder to shoulder. On that foundation we can build a lasting peace.

I want to end with a quote by JFK. In the same speech in which he called for peace

“not merely…in our time, but peace for all time”

he said:

“There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula… Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts.”

Ukraine has taken several of those many acts and the UK is one of the many nations. It is incumbent on us to continue acting until we find the peace we all seek.

Ukraine

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

The Government have ongoing discussions with our partners in Europe and the high north.

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

Does the Minister agree that this announcement should not affect the support of this House and the UK for Ukraine, and will she work with our armed forces and our defence industries to do everything possible to support Ukrainian forces on the frontline?

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct. We are doing that, but we must continue to step up our capacity to support Ukraine with weapons and the force that it needs to deter ongoing aggression, and to ensure that it is in the strongest possible position in any negotiations that it decides to enter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graeme Downie Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

Absolutely. I just travelled to the north-east of England and hit three different councils, looking at the different ways in which they deal with the veterans issue. I am really looking forward to the launch event, which will have a variety of different race cars. I just hope that I do not get to see the mudflaps when I am there.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)]

On behalf of us all, I wish our UK team in Canada good luck for the Invictus games. This week, I will have the privilege of chairing the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group. I will also attend the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers, and then the Munich security conference.

Mr Speaker, 2025 is the critical year for the war in Ukraine. The world is watching, and it is imperative that all allies step up their support. I am proud of the UK’s continued unity and leadership on Ukraine. This year, the UK will provide £4.5 billion in military aid—more than ever before. Our commitment is absolute. We will strengthen Ukraine on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. I am grateful to continue to have the support of both sides of the House. Together, we will stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Graeme Downie]

US navy officials have reported increased Russian and Chinese patrols in the High North. Last week, the Danish navy announced plans to acquire three new Arctic patrol ships, and March will see one of the largest Exercise Joint Viking operations in NATO’s history. With these concerns in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm which UK assets will be involved in Joint Viking this year? What plans does he have to update the 2022 policy paper on the UK’s defence contribution in the High North?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right about the High North. We will continue to maintain a strong defence profile and posture. Both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will be taking part in Exercise Joint Viking.

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.