Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be.

There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide.

As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks.

I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share the concern that the staff of the Northern Ireland veterans commissioner are appointed by the Northern Ireland Office, as is the commissioner? Does he agree that the commissioner having the freedom, independence and ability to challenge the Government with force and vigour, and without having to continually look over their shoulder at what may be perceived as oversight from the NIO, would actually strengthen that role?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

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

The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

It does. When a former Member of this House with Army experience, Mr Danny Kinahan, was appointed veterans commissioner, great expectations were placed on his shoulders. Sadly, as the right hon. Gentleman says, among the reasons proffered for leaving his role, Mr Kinahan stated that he felt his freedom of action was impinged on by the Northern Ireland Office. Be that right or be that wrong, the perception that such an office holder would have those restraints placed on them does untold damage to that office.

As I have in the past, I pay tribute to Mr Kinahan for his service in that role. I also wish well his recently appointed successor, Mr David Johnstone, whom I had the privilege of meeting last week. I trust that as he takes forward the work of representing veterans, he will find himself unrestrained. However, this Government could put all that beyond doubt by putting the veterans commissioner on the same statutory footing as the Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to Danny Kinahan; as a Minister who had some dealings with him, I would certainly say he did a very good job indeed. I wish his successor all the very best. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the previous Government actually went one step further by appointing a Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of Cabinet rank—a very experienced individual—which this Government have failed to replicate?

[Jim Allister]

That is true. However, they failed to take the step I am now advocating of putting the veterans commissioner on a statutory footing. This Government can go one better and do the right thing for veterans, and I trust that they will. I do support new clause 2; I think it is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We need to offer our retired servicemen the facilities we are offering our serving servicemen.

[Robin Swann]

The Ulster Unionist party would support new clause 2. I, too, pay tribute to my predecessor as Ulster Unionist MP for South Antrim, Mr Kinahan, for the work that he did in this place and continued to do for veterans. I also wish David Johnstone well.

The right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) made a point about the position of Veterans Minister. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity for the Veterans Minister to be responsible for appointing the veterans commissioner for Northern Ireland, rather than the NIO, and that there may be a segregation of perception with regard to some of the concerns that our veterans community would have?

[Jim Allister]

That is a fair point. In truth, our veterans community, as they see some of their brethren facing historic investigation, align the genesis and support for that investigation with the NIO. Therefore, it certainly would be better, both in presentation and in reality, if there was that distance between the veterans commissioner and the NIO.

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

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

[Jim Allister]

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

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

[Jim Allister]

I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I would like to put forward my strongest support for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. This legislation marks a significant step forward in ensuring that our armed forces personnel receive the care and support they deserve.

As the Member of Parliament for Stafford, I am acutely aware of the challenges faced by many of our service personnel and veterans. In my constituency, about 5.5% of residents are veterans, in addition to just under 1,000 serving personnel. For years, we have needed a national focus on the needs of serving personnel. By establishing an independent voice to investigate welfare matters, we can ensure that serving personnel have a dedicated champion who is able to bring their concerns to the forefront.

I am very pleased that the Bill will address long-standing issues in the current complaints process by transferring powers from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the new commissioner. That will provide serving personnel and their families with a much-needed avenue to address their grievances. That will make a huge difference for some of my constituents. I know that the Government are laser-focused on supporting our serving personnel and their families, and that this is only one step in our plans to change the lives of those who serve and who have served, and of their families.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 2, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke earlier, which specifies that the commissioner must engage with certain groups. I would have thought that to be expected as part of the role, so specifying them, as he rightly pointed out, makes the mistake of sometimes missing groups. I suggest that there is no need to divide the House on this issue, as it would be expected of any commissioner.

The Bill is about much more than policies and procedures. It is about recognising the immense sacrifices made by our service personnel, and providing them with the support they deserve and a healthier culture in which to serve our country. I commend the Government for taking that step for all regiments across the country—not just those based in Stafford. I urge all Members to support this vital legislation for our serving soldiers and serving personnel. It is only by supporting them that we can support the veterans of the future.