Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Graeme Downie and Mark Francois

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)

Debate between Graeme Downie and Mark Francois

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.

--- 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.