Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate.

SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy and a vital part of our defence industry. They bring agility, innovation and high-quality jobs to communities across the country. Yet despite their immense potential, SMEs face significant barriers to fully contributing to our national defence procurement. There is a real and long-standing problem across the MOD’s defence procurement system: it is beset by inefficiencies, including delays, overspends and rigid processes.

Liberal Democrats believe it is time for a fresh, ambitious approach to tackle those challenges. Our plan focuses on flexibility, accountability and long-term strategy. We would replace the current rigid system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous reviews of security threats and evolution of defence plans. That would enable procurement to evolve in response to emerging security threats and rapidly advancing technologies. Further, we would integrate defence procurement into a comprehensive industrial strategy. That would ensure a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement, safeguard jobs and skills, and promote UK-based businesses.

Collaboration with NATO and European partners is key to developing cutting-edge technologies and ensuring interoperability. For the areas of defence where we wish to maintain our sovereign capabilities, we must achieve that through greater collaboration with domestic SMEs. The survival of SMEs, such as small technology businesses, is dependent on their ability to develop and deploy innovative products at extraordinary speed. They are configured for agility, fast-paced decision making and recruitment of high-value talent.

By contrast, Government organisations, including the MOD, operate within more complex mandates and constrained budgets. It is neither realistic nor efficient for the Government to attempt to replicate the private sector’s pace of innovation. The MOD must improve its procurement processes to leverage the agility of SMEs.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Lib Dem defence spokesperson for allowing me to intervene. The Procurement Act 2023 was intended to make it easier for small businesses to access public sector procurement. Does she agree that it is now for the Government to set out clearly what other support will be made available to already busy SMEs, to remove the complexities and barriers as they seek to gain contracts within the pipeline?

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree and will come to that later in my speech.

By focusing its limited research and development budget on adapting high potential dual-use technologies for defence purposes, the MOD can maximise innovation while delivering value for taxpayers. Furthermore, by involving more SMEs, we can manufacture critical components locally, reducing security risks associated with reliance on non-NATO or non-European allied suppliers. That approach also spreads the economic benefits, stimulating regional economies, creating jobs and fostering innovation.

Defence contracts provide stable revenue streams, enabling SMEs to invest, scale up and contribute more broadly to the economy. The previous Conservative Government let small businesses down. They created chaos and uncertainty when businesses needed certainty and stability, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for SMEs, starting with overhauling the unfair business rates system and providing more support with energy costs.

The current state of SME participation in MOD procurement is underwhelming. Only around 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to SMEs; 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers. That is simply not good enough and we can do better. We welcome the announcement of a new defence industrial strategy, and we hope it is completed swiftly so that businesses can plan. I especially welcome that one of the six priorities of the strategy is to prioritise UK businesses, and another involves fostering a more diverse community of suppliers, including non-traditional SMEs. We will hold the Government to account on sticking to those priorities.

Ultimately, I want to see the strategy turn into meaningful action. SMEs need simpler access to contracts and reduced bureaucracy, including help to overcome defence-related banking challenges and support to compete on a level playing field with the largest suppliers. It is time for the Government to unlock the potential of SMEs to fuel local economies, increase the UK’s defence sovereignty and lead on innovative technologies.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been shrouded in delay and uncertainty. At a time when Europe faces its gravest security crisis in decades, this is unacceptable. Promises without a clear path are hollow, and the Government should commit to setting out by Easter a detailed and credible plan for reaching 2.5%.

We must also make the right spending decisions, and the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to the Army? He mentioned retention, which is another critical issue. Improving the living conditions of our armed forces must be a priority if we are to attract and keep the talent we need.

Finally, the ongoing problems of inefficient defence procurement undermine our readiness, so what is the Minister doing to tackle those long-standing problems? The Government must stop dragging their heels, set out the pathway to 2.5% and end the uncertainty.

[Luke Pollard]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we have been very clear and consistent that we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I remind her that when her party was in government, instead of increasing defence spending by £3 billion, as Labour did, the Liberal Democrats’ and the Conservatives’ first Budget cut defence spending by £2 billion, and cut it by 20% across the Parliament in which her party was in power. I support the hon. Lady in wanting a better deal for our forces, but I remind her to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally.

Unity Contract

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome this announcement of the UK’s new Unity contract with Rolls-Royce Submarines. This £9 billion investment will create 1,000 new jobs in the industry, and this sort of investment represents a boost for not only our national security but communities across the UK.

It is right that we celebrate this success for British industry and its skilled workforce. However, while we welcome this development, the Government must go further to create the stability and certainty that businesses need to thrive. Long-term growth requires an industrial strategy that incentivises investment in ethical, inclusive new technologies such as artificial intelligence and clean energy. We must position the UK as a global leader in these sectors, so that we tackle the climate crisis while creating good jobs and driving economic growth.

Furthermore, we urge the Government to work in closer partnership with businesses of all sizes. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to the defence supply chain, yet too often they are left out of the major procurement processes. What are the Government doing to ensure that SMEs are included in the MOD procurement process? We also want to unlock British businesses’ global potential by bringing down trade barriers and building stronger relationships with our closest trading partners, including by fixing our broken relationship with Europe.

Universal liberal principles are at the core of what we believe as Liberal Democrats, not least among them internationalism, human rights, the pursuit of peace and the rule of law. That is why we continue to champion the liberal, rules-based international order, which provides a strong basis for multilateral co-operation to address the world’s biggest problems.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a policy of pursuing global disarmament. However, in the meantime, and in the light of all the current threats, we call on the Government to maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and maintain the current posture of continuous at-sea deterrence.

I urge the Government to rebuild trust with our European allies. Our security is inseparable from Europe’s, and we must work towards a UK-EU defence and security agreement. Recent agreements with Germany are promising, but they must be a starting point for deeper co-operation. What steps are being taken to strengthen the AUKUS partnership with the United States and Australia, particularly in the light of concerns about potential shifts in US foreign policy? National security and economic growth—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The Liberal Democrat spokeswoman will be aware that she is allocated two minutes, which she has already exceeded significantly.

Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

It is also important for Front Benchers to arrive on time to hear the opening statement—I believe that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson was four minutes late—and it is important for them to know that they may not be called in the future, but, on this occasion, I do invite the hon. Lady to speak.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my lateness.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in our support for their actions against the Russian threat. We also thank all the service personnel involved in dealing with this threat.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our defence policy and conventional forces should be focused on defending British territory and playing a leading role in our immediate European neighbourhood. As such, we welcome the Government’s announcement that the Royal Airforce will provide P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint maritime patrol and surveillance aircraft to join Baltic Sentry under NATO command.

Action to defend the realm is particularly pressing in light of recent escalations of hybrid threats from Russia. The suspected sabotage of undersea cables, including the damage to Estlink-2 on Christmas day, underscores the urgency of this moment. Such cables are the life blood of international connectivity and commerce and any attack on them is an attack on the collective stability of Europe.

The events involving the tanker Eagle S and its links to sanctioned entities supporting Putin’s war machine are deeply alarming. This is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of aggression that demands robust and co-ordinated action. This Government must rebuild trust with our European neighbours. The UK’s national interest and security have always been inextricably tied to that of Europe. From the second world war through to the cold war and the current war in Ukraine, our shared defence has been vital.

To that end, we urge the Government to work hand in glove with NATO countries to support Ukraine during the war and the rebuilding afterwards, including finding lawful ways to use the $300 billion of frozen Russian state assets as reparations; sign a comprehensive security treaty with the European Union to strengthen collaborative defence; and collaborate on developing cutting-edge defence technologies and ensure inter-operability with NATO allies to respond effectively in times of crisis.

We also face serious national vulnerabilities. The UK lacks land-based anti-ballistic missile systems to protect critical national infrastructure. Questions remain about the ability to secure the Greenland-UK gap.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but when will they outline a clear timeline for achieving that? This is not the time for complacency. The threats are clear, and the response must be decisive.

[John Healey]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Perhaps she, like I, thought that there would be more interest in this House in the operation of the Competition and Markets Authority than the length of the urgent question proved was the case. It may just be that I can run a little faster than her.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

2.30 pm

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of—

(a) whether or how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Chairman of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery;

(b) whether or how the Commissioner and Secretary of State will ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners and related bodies.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner must—

(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

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

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the Armed Forces, including the chain of command; and

(c) any other government bodies;

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

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

Amendment 6, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended time frame for—

(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;

(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;

(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.

Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces, including but not limited to—

(a) the provision and operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance;

(b) the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition; and

(c) the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to the wellbeing of, and provision of support to, the children, families and other dependants of serving and former members of the armed forces in the Commissioner’s investigation of service welfare matters.

Amendment 1, page 3, line 31, after “means” insert

“kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel as well as other”.

This amendment would include kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel in the definition of ”relevant family members”.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 35, at end insert—

“340IAA Commissioner support for minority groups within service personnel

(1) When investigating general service welfare matters under section 340IA, the Commissioner must consider the specific experiences of minority groups within service personnel, including but not limited to—

(a) female;

(b) BAME

(c) non-UK; and

(d) LGBT+

service personnel.

(2) The Commissioner may investigate service welfare matters unique to one or more of these groups of service personnel.

(3) The Commissioner must maintain up-to-date evidence on the experiences of these groups of service personnel and develop robust community engagement mechanisms to identify and address issues specific to these groups.

(4) The Commissioner must establish a formal network of representation to enable the views and concerns of these groups of service personnel to be communicated to the Commissioner.

(5) The Commissioner must publish an annual report outlining—

(a) the issues facing and concerns raised by these groups of service personnel;

(b) the actions taken by the Commissioner to address identified issues;

(c) the progress made in improving conditions for these groups of service personnel.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to take specific action to consider and address welfare issues facing service personnel from minority groups.

Amendment 11, page 5, line 22, at end insert—

“(aa) the report must include the Commissioner’s view on whether the relevant general service welfare issue has had, or may have, an effect on the retention of armed forces personnel; and”.

This amendment would require a report by the Commissioner on a general service welfare matter to include the Commissioner’s view on whether the issue affects the retention of armed forces personnel.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) After section 340O (annual report on system for dealing with service complaints) insert—

‘340OA Annual report on the work of the Commissioner

(1) The Commissioner must, for each calendar year, prepare a report covering—

(a) the actions taken by the Commissioner to promote and improve the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(b) the initiatives undertaken by the Commissioner to enhance public awareness of welfare issues faced by persons subject to service law and relevant family members;

(c) the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required.

(2) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament promptly and, in any event, before the end of 30 sitting days beginning with the day on which the report is received.

“Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.

(3) The Secretary of State may exclude from any report laid under this section any material the publication of which the Secretary of State considers—

(a) would be against the interests of national security;

(b) might jeopardise the safety of any person.

(4) With three months of the receipt of any report prepared by the Commissioner under this section, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report which includes an overview of any measures taken or planned to be taken to address any resource issues identified by the Commissioner.’”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to publish an annual report on the work it had done to improve the welfare of service personnel and public awareness of welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

“3 A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.

3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.

3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.

3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.

Amendment 3, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out its functions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out its functions.

[Helen Maguire]

This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House.

The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role.

The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation.

Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach.

The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community.

New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line.

Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind.

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support.

Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families.

To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community.

Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill.

It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken.

Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny.

That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked.

The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down.

The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

I know the Minister will have read amendment 2 in detail, and is aware that it includes the words “including but not limited to”, and therefore includes individuals with disabilities and others. That is what the hon. Members for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), and for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), were concerned about.

[Luke Pollard]

That highlights the danger of a list. In future amendments that the hon. Lady tables, I would expect her to veer away from lists to avoid that problem.

Briefly, on the inheritance tax that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) mentioned, the Minister for Veterans and People has replied to him, as I said he would in Defence questions on 6 January. Provisions in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 will continue to ensure that attributable deaths of active members are exempt from inheritance tax. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for the Treasury, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the result of the genuine consultation being conducted by Treasury colleagues. He may need to wait until the Treasury has had a chance to consider the matter. I expect, nonetheless, that he will push his amendment to a vote, because there is a certain level of politics that I appreciate he has to play. It is certainly true that our armed forces deserve better than they have experienced over the past 14 years. Hollowed out and underfunded services, servicemen and women living in accommodation that, frankly, is not good enough, and morale falling every single year of the past 14 years—these are the areas that this Government seek to change.

The landmark Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will deliver a better service for our armed forces and, importantly, their families. We have a lot of work to undo the damage, but I hope the message goes out loud and clear from this House that the creation of an independent Armed Forces Commissioner—a champion for those serving in our military and for their families—is a good thing that enjoys cross-party support. I urge all colleagues to support the Bill.

[Helen Maguire]

I am happy with the reassurance received from the Government, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare

Amendment proposed: 9, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and death in service benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces and their dependants.”.—(Mr Francois.)

The amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits, including death in service benefits, in their investigation of service welfare matters.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

UK Submarine Fleet

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I am disappointed that we did not somehow co-ordinate so that today the music that so often blares out on a Wednesday afternoon was “Yellow Submarine”. That song tells of the adventures of a submariner and reminds us to thank all those who serve as submariners in such confined conditions. It is so important that we recognise them, because the UK submarine fleet is critical to national security, economic development and defence of the rules-based international order.

As we have heard, the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet comprises nine vessels: five Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. The fleet plays a central role in the UK’s defence strategy, providing a continuous at-sea deterrent and contributing to global security through intelligence, surveillance and undersea warfare capabilities, but the submarine fleet faces significant challenges. Issues such as manpower shortages, delays in maintenance and ageing infrastructure risk undermining the fleet’s operational readiness, and extended maintenance periods have raised concern about the Royal Navy’s ability to meet its current commitments as well as new obligations, such as deployments to Australia under the AUKUS agreement.

The UK submarine industry is critical not only for national defence but as a significant driver of economic growth and skills development. His Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, known as Faslane and home to the UK’s entire submarine fleet, has received over £1.8 billion in infrastructure investments since 2015, supporting over 6,000 military and civilian jobs, and making it one of Scotland’s largest employers. In addition, the construction of next-generation Dreadnought-class sub-surface ballistic nuclear submarines and the AUKUS submarine programme is projected to create more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including, as has been mentioned, 17,000 new roles at Rolls-Royce in Derby. These projects foster expertise in engineering, nuclear propulsion and advanced manufacturing, ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global submarine technology. It is essential that we continue to invest in training and apprenticeships to attract young people to this critical sector. Our young people need to develop the skills necessary to carry out these critical projects.

Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a cornerstone of our national security policy. For over 50 years, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been an unbroken line of defence against nuclear threats. Although I believe that the end goal should be multilateral disarmament, the reality is that the global security environment, which includes threats from state and non-state actors, makes it imperative to retain a robust deterrent.

The AUKUS trilateral security agreement with Australia and the United States marks a significant step forward in international defence co-operation. As part of this partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design.

[Luke Akehurst]

Can the hon. Lady confirm something for me? Her remarks suggest that the Liberal Democrats now support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, but I remember a review when Nick Clegg was the leader of the Liberal Democrats that suggested scrapping the continuous at-sea deterrent and using coastal-launched cruise missiles, or aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, which I thought was most dangerous. I would be very reassured if it is now the case that the Liberal Democrats support the continuous at-sea deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to clarify that we do indeed support the at-sea deterrent, as was confirmed by a motion at conference recently; I cannot remember which conference it was, but it was a few conferences ago.

As I was saying, as part of the AUKUS partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design. This not only strengthens our shared security interests in the Indo-Pacific but reaffirms the UK’s role as a leading global defence partner. We must ensure that we continue to show our strong support for the AUKUS programme, particularly given potential policy shifts in the United States. Reports suggest that the Trump Administration might renegotiate the AUKUS agreement or deprioritise the commitments that are part of it.

In addition to their role in deterrence and warfare, submarines are critical for safeguarding undersea infrastructure, including the data cables that underpin global communications and commerce. The rise of seabed warfare, particularly by hostile states such as Russia and China, poses a serious threat to these assets, and a robust submarine fleet is essential to protect the UK’s interests in this domain.

Finally, we must tackle the long-standing issues in defence procurement. Delays and cost overruns in major programmes have hindered progress in building and maintaining our submarine fleet. A comprehensive industrial strategy is needed to provide a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement. Such a strategy would not only ensure the readiness of the Royal Navy but support the growth of the UK’s defence industry.

The UK submarine fleet is a vital component of our national security, our economy and our international partnerships. Although challenges remain, the benefits of continued investment in the sector are evident, and I urge the Government to prioritise the manpower, infrastructure and procurement reforms necessary to ensure that this critical capability is preserved and indeed enhanced for generations to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?

[Al Carns]

We already do that. The reality is that a large proportion of these houses were built 50 to 60 years ago, so the thick insulation and double-skinned walls that we would see as commonplace just do not exist. The Annington deal is therefore such a good one, as it allows us to refurbish or rebuild as required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is important that the strategic defence review is able to report its recommendations. It is certainly true that we inherited armed forces with capability gaps, falling morale and a recruitment and personnel crisis, which is why the SDR is so important in setting out a clear direction for the future. This Government back defence and will continue to do so, ensuring that those capability gaps are filled.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting; I was in the Etherton review debate in the main Chamber, contributing on important LGBTQ+ issues. I see that my amendments fell in my absence, and I hope that nothing detrimental was said about my absence, considering the importance of the Etherton review for LGBT veterans.

Moving on to recruits, it is essential that the commissioner can also investigate issues facing recruits, who sometimes have to stay on bases overnight. Upon reading the Bill, I saw that there is an absence of consideration of recruits, which is why I tabled the new clause—to make sure that they are also considered in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman has not been on Capita’s Christmas card list for quite some time. Speaking as the Minister responsible for recruitment, we have set out some policies in relation to improving our recruitment process, in particular the time of flight issue that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. We will be making further announcements in the new year on how we seek to improve that, but there is work under way in all the single services and across the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say something now, but I ask him to hold his nerve; there will be further announcements in due course.

On the concern about recruits, potential civilian recruits are unlikely to have encountered general service welfare issues in the same way as those people who are in service, who will be the principal remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The experience of potential recruits is very important and we have set a new ambition for the armed forces to make a conditional offer in 10 days and provide a provisional start date in 30 days. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete an attestation that makes them a member of the armed forces, subject to service law and therefore within the scope of the commissioner from that first moment.

To reassure the Committee, the new Government’s work in improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talents, highlighting that Defence is a modern forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career.

There will be further announcements about how we seek to build on recruitment in the new year, but let me put firmly on the record that there are a lot of people who want to join the armed forces, especially young people looking to establish a good career in our military. We and all those with responsibility for supporting our armed forces need to improve the recruitment process to enable them to join, and that will improve the warfighting capability—the lethality—of our armed forces and thus the deterrent effect.

The issues that the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Spelthorne raised are very important. We do not believe recruits should be within the scope of the commissioner because they are outside the scope of service law, but I entirely recognise that there may be issues that recruits may wish to raise with the Armed Forces Commissioner about the recruitment process subsequent to their joining the armed forces. The commissioner would therefore need to make a decision on whether to take up those issues, based on whether they fall within the definition of a general service welfare matter. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of –

(a) how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner;

(b) how the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will each ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”—(Mr Francois.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As we come round the final bend, hopefully the Committee will recall something that cropped up quite a lot in Tuesday’s public evidence session. A number of witnesses mentioned veterans, and there were quite a few questions, so we thought it appropriate to table a new clause to facilitate a debate on this subject, and specifically on how the Armed Forces Commissioner might, if at all, be able to engage on issues of veterans’ welfare, including with the existing veterans commissioners.

There is concern within the veterans’ community about the incoming Government’s decision, first, to remove the Veterans Minister from Cabinet and, secondly, to roll the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD, whereas previously it was at least independent from that Department, if not wholly independent from the Government, when the OVA lived in the Cabinet Office.

I am not imagining that this is a matter of concern. I have a letter here that was written to the Minister for Veterans and People, dated 30 July 2024, co-signed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the then Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. The letter highlights very well the issue of genuine independence from the MOD. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter’s tone is in no way personally critical of the Veterans Minister, whose military service we fully acknowledge and salute this afternoon; the nub of the issue is the fact that the OVA has been moved. The letter says:

“Firstly, as a junior minister you have no seat in Cabinet. We understand that SofS will represent veterans at this level but his responsibilities are broad and he is not focusing daily on veterans’ affairs; nor will you, with your entire MoD people portfolio… Secondly, the subordination of the OVA under your control”—

that is, the MOD’s control—

“whilst tidying-up the government wiring diagram, also concerns us. The major factors that impact on veterans, such as health, housing, employment, education and social care are not MoD controlled. As such, locating the OVA in the Cabinet Office made sense, to best coordinate and cajole other departments into taking veterans’ needs into account.”

I have now kept my word to the hon. Member for North Durham, who challenged me to talk about this—I have done my best.

The letter from the three veterans commissioners goes on to say:

“Veterans have little faith in the MoD leading on veteran policy and delivery. This attitude has been entrenched through the perception of adversity and neglect that many veterans have experienced in their dealings with the MoD. It is a tough message, but one that we are duty bound to deliver.”

The previous Government cannot be blamed for this one, because we created the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and deliberately gave birth to it, as it were, in the Cabinet Office and not the MOD. Much of today’s debate has been about the independence, or otherwise, of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Well, here are three veterans commissioners collectively expressing their “concern” about the Government’s decision to take the OVA and roll it back into the MOD, where the risk is that the Department will end up marking its own homework. Veterans clearly preferred it when the OVA was at least semi-independent under the Cabinet Office, and when Johnny Mercer was an extremely proactive member of the Cabinet pushing very hard on a range of these issues.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.

Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows the clauses and selected amendments that have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper.

The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, are taken when we come to the relevant clause. A Member who has put their name to a leading amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they must indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.

Clause 1

Armed Forces Commissioner

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

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner must—

(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions.

The armed forces covenant is

“a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.”

I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I will make a brief contribution to say that we take it as axiomatic that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be mindful of the principles of the armed forces covenant throughout the performance of his or her duties. There may be an occasion later in the debate when there is some conflict between those principles and what the Government are currently proposing, but we will highlight that when we get to it, to remain in order.

In essence, it seems to us entirely logical that the commissioner should be mindful of the principles of the covenant, as they are important. The two key principles, for the record, are that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage relative to the civilian population by virtue of their service and that there should be special consideration for armed forces personnel and their families, especially the wounded and the bereaved, in certain circumstances. Having placed those on the record, I am sure the Minister will not demur; hopefully, we can deal with this amendment fairly promptly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am very happy to stray out of the lane of the legislation we are considering today towards legislation that we are not yet considering, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes. As he will know, only part of the armed forces covenant is in law, with a special grip on local government. In our manifesto, we committed to put it fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a cross-Government piece of work to identify precisely which clauses would need to be inserted into the Armed Forces Act to make that work.

Insertion into an Armed Forces Act is also relevant to the amendment of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. As she will know, this Bill not a stand-alone piece of legislation: it seeks to amend parts of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Can I direct her attention to part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006? That is the part that deals with the armed forces covenant. She is right in the respect that the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in this Bill; that is because this Bill, when passed, will be inserted into that Armed Forces Act, which includes part 16A relating to the armed forces covenant. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I welcome the Minister’s welcome for the amendment. I hope the Committee is doing the right thing here. We tabled it because the issue cropped up a lot in the public evidence session. By the way, I thought it was extremely useful to be able to have that. When I first came to the House, we did not have such sessions before our consideration of Bills. Perhaps this is teaching an old dog new tricks, but now, having seen that procedure in action, I can understand why it was introduced.

Trust and independence cropped up so often on Tuesday, so we thought it was important to table the amendment to get some of that on the record. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and for the spirit in which he has given them. I know that the hon. Member for Colchester is quite an expert in this subject, so I take the point about the drafting; however, it was a probing amendment from the outset and we thank the Minister for putting those assurances on the record. As he says, if ever the commissioner were challenged on the point of independence, he or she would be able to refer back to this debate in the Committee Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended timeframe for—

(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;

(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;

(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.

We have tabled amendment 6 because currently no time frame is set out in the Bill. We believe it is important for a time frame to be set out and we feel that the Government should be held to account on that. Otherwise, the process could continue for several years. We feel it is important for both the armed forces and the MOD to know exactly when the Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished and the commissioner appointed, and when the powers of the commissioner will take effect. At least setting out a time frame would have some strength.

[Mr Francois]

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I seem to recall that on Tuesday the Minister laid out a timeframe for the establishment of the commissioner and their office; from memory, I think he said that the intention was to have it up and running in early 2026. Perhaps, in the spirit of the hon. Lady’s amendment, he could say a bit more in his reply about the timing, and particularly about the interview process. I have a particular reason for asking that question, which I will come back to later.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for moving her amendment. This legislation is a priority for the Government. We want to do this prominently, to provide a clear signal to our people and their families that their welfare matters are important and should receive a greater focus from the Government and the Ministry of Defence and therefore from the single services. At the same time, it needs to be done correctly.

I share the hon. Lady’s eagerness to make sure that the commissioner’s role is properly established and brought forward. We have not detailed the implementation timetable in the Bill; that would not normally be necessary in primary legislation. As the Committee will be aware, there are several factors affecting the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee in pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following the passage of the Bill. Their role will be subject to a full public appointments process regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation.

We expect this process to continue in 2025. In parallel, we will be undertaking the necessary implementation to ensure a smooth set-up and transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new commissioner’s office. It is important to stress that the team in SCOAF are doing a good job, and we should ensure a smooth transition into the new function for all the people working hard to support our armed forces.

I can therefore confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026, but I would expect Opposition and perhaps Government Members to table parliamentary questions throughout to investigate the process that we are undertaking.

It is worth saying that the full public appointments process will also undertake the necessary vetting and security clearances required for this role. That will further build the trust among armed forces personnel not only that the person appointed to the role is experienced, necessary and appropriate, but that they have the necessary vetting and security clearance to undertake a role on military bases in particular. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that reassurance and withdraw her amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Last year, service morale fell to its lowest level on record, with only four in 10 of our armed forces personnel reporting being satisfied with service life. They reported that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing the decision to leave our armed forces. This Bill is a deliberate and major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand alongside them.

Clause 1 will establish and set out the functions of the Armed Forces Commissioner by inserting proposed new section 365AA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. It will also abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That is legislative language; the intent is to move it into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, but in parliamentary drafting terms the office is abolished. Other provisions of the Bill, which we will come to later, transfer the ombudsman’s functions to the new commissioner.

Subsection (2) of proposed new section 365AA will provide the commissioner with new functions to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that they face; It will also provide the commissioner with the functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) of proposed new section 365AA will give the commissioner the necessary freedoms to carry out their functions and meet their objectives, along with reference to any related restrictions. Subsection (6) introduces new schedule 14ZA, which sets out further detail on the establishment of the commissioner’s office.

Clause 1(2) will abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(3) will repeal section 365B of the Armed Forces Act, which established the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(4) introduces schedule 1, which will insert new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act, for those who want to follow it up in their bedtime reading.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister has summarised the clause very well. We understand the intent of the Bill. We said on Second Reading that we would be a critical friend to it, and hopefully that will play out today. Nevertheless, we support the principle of what the Government are doing, so there is no need to divide the Committee on clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Armed Forces Commissioner

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

“3  A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.

3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.

3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.

3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.

As numerous hon. Members have outlined, it is incredibly important that the role of the commissioner be completely independent and be scrutinised across the parties. We feel it is important for a parliamentary Select Committee to play a role in the commissioning process. It would allow cross-party consensus and would ensure that the commissioner, whoever they may be, is truly independent and can make the right decisions and examinations as appropriate.

[Mr Francois]

I declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee for about seven years. Over the years, there has been a debate about the extent to which the Defence Committee and other Select Committees should have power over appointments in the relevant Department.

If I can draw a quick analogy, the United States Congress has a slightly different constitutional settlement from ours, but its Committees tend to be much more powerful than ours. They and their Appropriations Committee counterparts have what the Americans call line-item power, so they can increase or decrease the spending on a particular defence programme. Would that for one moment the Defence Committee had had that power. I see the Minister grinning quizzically at that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am aware that there are other people in the room who table questions to us. I will choose some adjectives carefully in due course.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made is a fair one. The senior appointments process is well established across Government. We enjoy good scrutiny of the process ourselves, as part of its oversight by the structures around the Cabinet Office. We and the previous Government have both focused on that to ensure that the process produces the right people.

I hope that the additional pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee, as well as the seriousness with which the Government and the Committee take the matter, will provide even more robust scrutiny. I would be very happy, where appropriate, to respond to parliamentary questions throughout the process to reassure Members that it is being conducted in a manner that is not only timely but thorough, ahead of any pre-appointment scrutiny by the HCDC.

The spirit of the Bill is to engage Parliament more in the role of this commissioner and to ensure that parliamentarians can have just as much confidence in the role as I hope our armed forces can. The whole process is designed with that in mind. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw her amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the Minister for providing the reassurances that I think the Committee needs in order to ensure that there is absolute scrutiny. It is good to hear that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee. We hope that that will ensure that the commissioner who is appointed is truly independent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel, with responsibility for providing the Commissioner with advice on legal issues arising in the course of the Commissioner’s work of promoting and investigating general service welfare.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner’s staff to include a KC to provide legal advice to the Commissioner on legal issues arising in the course of their work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

The Minister is nodding. We have a problem: our armed forces are shrinking. That is not necessarily purely for budgetary reasons; we are not going to get into the 2.5% of GDP discussion—I would love to, but I do not think the Chair would thank me for it. More are leaving than are joining and there are a number of reasons why. As a former Armed Forces Minister, I was commissioned by a previous Prime Minister to write a report on why people leave. It was called “Stick or Twist?”, because that essentially encapsulated the dilemma that service personnel and their families face. By the way, the decision to leave is usually a family decision—it is a kind of kitchen table conversation.

The overwhelming reason why they leave, as we have said, is the pressure of service life on family life. One reason why quite a few personnel are leaving now, however, is that they are worried about the legal implications of the work that they do and, bluntly, whether the Government have their back. That is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. If the commissioner is there to ensure the welfare of service personnel and their families, along the lines that the Minister articulated very well in the debate on clause 1 stand part, they are going to need some kind of legal capability to investigate those sorts of issues.

I take the points made by Government Members, but we are seeking to ensure that, whether it be full time or part time, the commissioner has the necessary legal firepower, for want of a better word. This comes back to the whole debate about trust; the service personnel need to be convinced that, if they have a worry or issue about lawfare, the commissioner is equipped to deal with it effectively. That is the spirit of amendment 10. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the issue is becoming an increasing worry for service personnel. Again, for the sake of brevity do not get me going on Northern Ireland veterans this morning. But this is a problem, and that is why the amendment was drafted.

I do not want to try the Committee’s patience, so, to summarise, we believe there is a broader issue here about the whole effect of lawfare on modern warfare—the effect it is having on both the recruitment and the retention of His Majesty’s armed forces. Having tabled the amendment to provoke a debate on that issue, and how the commissioner might help, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to a genuinely well-meaning suggestion.

[Helen Maguire]

On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the amendments as they give me the chance to speak about a number of issues. I first turn to amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. He said that the purpose of the amendment was to require the commissioner’s staff to include a King’s counsel to provide legal advice to the commissioner. I agree that the provision of quality legal advice to the commissioner is essential, and having the facility in house may well be something that a commissioner will want to specify when setting up their own office. I think it is right, however, that the commissioner should be able to make their own judgment about what type and what level of legal support they may require.

It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the commissioner looks at general service welfare matters and not the conduct of military operations, which I realise he is familiar with. I will come on to the other points that he raised subsequently, but it is worth saying that welfare matters are the commissioner’s main remit.

LGBT Veterans: Etherton Review

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

We are here today to discuss the implementation of the recommendations laid out in Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, following the unjust and appalling treatment of LGBT+ veterans who served in our armed forces under the shadow of a discriminatory and dehumanising ban. It is not just a matter of historical injustice, but an ongoing fight for dignity, recognition and fairness for those who gave so much to our country and were repaid with shameful betrayal. We must also recognise all those who served before 1967, and the injustice they faced before that time.

Between 1967 and 2000, thousands of LGBT+ personnel were dismissed or forced out of the military simply because of who they were. The anti-gay ban had and continues to have an enormous impact on people’s lives; careers were destroyed, lives upended and futures taken away. LGBT+ veterans were outed to their friends and family without their consent, facing extreme stigma. Not only did they lose their jobs, but they had their medals removed and were stripped of their pensions. In some cases, a conviction made it impossible for people to move on and rebuild their lives due to the barriers a criminal record creates when trying to find employment. It is indefensible that those who put their lives on the line for our country should continue to be treated with disregard.

The independent review by Lord Etherton lays bare the devastating impact of this discriminatory policy on LGBT+ veterans and makes 49 recommendations to address those wrongs. While progress has been made, this process is far from complete. The Government must ensure that all the review’s recommendations are acted on as swiftly and comprehensively as possible.

Let me share two harrowing examples from constituents of my colleagues, which illustrate the enduring trauma caused by this policy. This morning, I met Michael Sansom, who sits in the Public Gallery today, who is a constituent of Monica Harding MP. He joined the Royal Air Force—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. As a Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Lady, first, should be on the Bench when I am on my feet. Secondly, we must not refer to colleagues by name in the House but by their constituency.

[Helen Maguire]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Michael joined the Royal Air Force at just 16 years old, filled with pride and ambition, and served with distinction for five years before his life was shattered in 1992. After innocently sharing details about attending London clubs, Michael became the target of a covert investigation: his barracks were searched in a humiliating manner, exposing deeply personal items such as a romantic letter; he was extensively and inappropriately questioned about his personal life, offered electroconvulsive “conversion” therapy, and underwent what at the time was described as a “medical examination”, but would today be called sexual assault.

Ultimately, Michael was charged with homosexuality and detained for 14 days before his discharge, during which time he was subjected to cruel physical and verbal abuse. Following his discharge, Michael lost not only his career, but his home and his sense of purpose. He was left homeless, battling severe depression and rejection from his family. Despite his immense contributions to lifting the military ban, Michael continues to struggle with the deep scars of his past. He now seeks justice for himself and others who endured similar horrors. The current compensation scheme, capped at £70,000, is an inadequate acknowledgment of the profound harm suffered by individuals such as Michael. Michael said to me that he was proud to serve his country, and his country was ashamed of him.

David, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), also served in the RAF during the 1980s, fulfilling a lifelong dream. However, his career was marred by persistent rumours, bullying and verbal abuse. Despite never being charged, he was subjected to constant surveillance and intimidation. After years enduring shame and distress, David left the RAF following an interview with his commanding officer, who bluntly stated that there was no place for him “in this man’s RAF”. To add insult to injury, David had to buy his way out of the RAF. He spent years unable to live openly as himself, and has faced diminished career prospects and a significantly impacted pension. Like Michael, David finds the proposed compensation deeply disappointing, and urges the Government to reconsider their approach.

These stories are not isolated incidents. They represent a systematic failure that affected thousands of LGBT+ veterans. Lord Etherton’s review revealed the immense toll this policy took on mental health, with 87% of LGBT+ veterans reporting that their dismissal impacted their mental health, and 75% stating that their finances had been affected.

The Government have accepted 38 of the 49 recommendations made in the review, which I acknowledge, and have also acknowledged the need for compensation. I am also pleased that the total budget for the compensation scheme has now been increased. However, the flat cap of £50,000 for dismissed or discharged applicants is inadequate. Veterans charities have rightly called it “inadequate and unacceptably low”. For people who lost their careers, homes and futures, it is a small offering. Justice demands better. It is unconscionable that veterans such as Michael and David are left fighting for recognition and fairness after already enduring so much. The LGBT impact payment of between £1,000 and £20,000 is also unacceptably low for what one veteran described as “state-sanctioned sexual assault”.

The Liberal Democrats are unequivocal in our stance: LGBT+ veterans deserve full and fair compensation for the harm they suffered. We call on the Government to reassess the compensation scheme, ensuring that it truly reflects the gravity of the injustices endured. We welcome the four non-financial measures outlined by the Secretary of State today for veterans who served before 1967, but it is vital that all 49 recommendations of the Etherton review are implemented swiftly and comprehensively, including the return of medals, clarification of pension rights and the establishment of a memorial to honour LGBT+ veterans.

Justice delayed is justice denied, and the Government must expedite support for elderly or ill veterans such as Joe Ousalice, who served with distinction for 18 years but now fears he may die before seeing justice. Joe deserves to have suitable compensation swiftly. He dedicated his life to serving our country and asks for very little in return.

This debate also reminds us that discrimination in the armed forces has not been limited to LGBT+ personnel. The 2021 Atherton report highlighted the pervasive challenges faced by women in the military, including bullying, harassment and sexual assault. Some 62% of female veterans reported experiencing some form of abuse during their service. Such systemic issues are unacceptable and undermine the very values our armed forces are meant to uphold. We must ensure that the recommendations of the Atherton report are fully implemented and that diversity, inclusion and respect become cornerstones of military culture.

The armed forces represent the best of our nation. They are made up of individuals who have pledged to protect us, often at great personal cost. For too long, LGBT+ veterans were denied the respect and recognition they deserved. It is time to right that wrong. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly with our LGBT+ veterans. We will continue to fight for fair compensation, the implementation of all recommendations from the Etherton and Atherton reports, and a culture of inclusivity in the armed forces. Let us honour the sacrifices of these brave individuals by delivering justice swiftly.