Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I welcome the introduction of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill and the cross-party support for it. The Government could not have introduced the Bill at a more prudent time, as our service personnel have made it clear over many years that they are not getting the quality of support that they need, whether because of poor responses to concerns and complaints, the quality of homes or the treatment of women and other minority groups.

The Ministry of Defence’s most recent attitude report showed that morale amongst service personnel fell for the third year in a row. Only around a third of military personnel reported feeling valued by their service, despite the vital defence role they play. Pay satisfaction, which last year was at its lowest recorded level, had increased by only 1%. It is time that those concerns were addressed.

We know that the Government have already announced the largest armed forces pay increase in 22 years, and the introduction of the armed forces commissioner represents even further investment in the welfare of our forces. This vital support is not only incredibly well deserved but long overdue. Ten units are stationed at Chetwynd barracks in my constituency of Broxtowe, and the establishment of an armed forces commissioner will transform how the concerns and needs of our armed forces personnel and their loved one are addressed.

In an ever-changing defence landscape, it is key that the Government ensure that our armed forces have a dedicated spokesperson and advocate to ensure that their voices are heard at the highest levels. It is time that we create an infrastructure to establish that long-needed sense of security and support within the military community.

Let us move forward with this important legislation and reinforce our commitment to the welfare of our service members. In doing so, let us ensure that those who serve and their families are given the support that they so rightly deserve. Let us establish an armed forces commissioner so that we can better serve those who nobly serve our country.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

Q Good. My final question is about the powers in the Bill about dismissing a commissioner in the event of their being incapacitated or unable to fulfil their job. Could you talk through how that would work? Currently, if you were not able to fulfil your duties, how would that work? Is there any difference between the framework that establishes your office and the commissioner’s office?

Mariette Hughes: The framework proposed in this Bill is significantly stronger than what is currently in existence with my office. I have similar provisions in my terms and conditions that if for any reason I am unable to fulfil my functions, the Secretary of State can terminate my employment; equally, I can give notice. What is not in the current legislation or in my terms and conditions is the ability to appoint a deputy or an acting person to fill that role. That is a very real risk and it is a gap.

When I took on the role, there was actually a gap between myself and my predecessor during which nobody in the office could do any work, because there is no power unless it is delegated directly from the ombudsman and there is no power for the Secretary of State to put in an interim. There was a small period when nothing could happen. That is a real risk. At the moment, if I get hit by a bus—touch wood—and cannot come into work, there is nothing in the legislation that allows my staff to continue working unless I am there to delegate that power. The Bill allows for the commissioner to appoint a deputy, to delegate specific functions, and, in the event of incapacity or their being unfit to do the job, to be removed from post and an acting commissioner to be put in place. That gives us a lot more security than what we have currently, and I am in favour of it.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q Thank you very much for joining us. In part of your introduction, you spoke about the number of complaints that you receive. Clearly, the number of complaints that you receive is lower than the number of valid complaints that probably should be made. How do you think that this role will encourage people who might not have actively come forward, such as people from LGBT backgrounds and non-UK personnel, and enable them to come forward and make those complaints?

Mariette Hughes: I think it will allow people who are experiencing an issue that affects a wider group or a demographic to bring forward that complaint as a whole. There is a lot of onus in service complaints on the resolution of individual grievances. You cannot bring a group complaint; it has to be an individual’s complaint with a named respondent. We are doing as much as we can to make sure that that system does not feel onerous, combative or scary, but some people are simply not comfortable putting their name down and saying, “I want to complain about my employer because of this.”

This new role has a wider focus on welfare, so you could form really good links with some of the networks to say, “Okay, when people come to you for advice, what are the things they are worried about? What are the things they are scared about? What policies are affecting them?” If those people are still not comfortable raising individual complaints, we need to ask what issues they are facing and whether we can cast a light on them. I want everyone to feel safe to come forward, but equally, if we know there are problems, it should not take the individual coming forward. If we know there are problems, we should be able to go and shine the light on it for them, so that they do not need to do that.

[Juliet Campbell]

Q That leads on to my second question, which is about patterns and trends of complaints and whether this role will enable people to look at them, rather than waiting, as you said, and think, “Oh, I have got to be the person who comes forward.” How would you be able to address any patterns or trends that you see in complaints?

Mariette Hughes: I think it is key to look at the front end of complaints. By the time things come to us, they have been all the way through the process, they are still unhappy with it and they are asking us to fix it. It is really important that we can fulfil that function, but the thing that went wrong for that individual happened maybe 12 months ago, so we have to see what people are coming to welfare for, what people are coming to the networks for, and what people are using “Speak Out” and the “Call it Out” hub for. When people are saying, “I am seeing certain behaviours and I’m having an issue,” where can we get the sources of data to look into it? It will be really important for the commissioner to try to get ahead of some of those issues. It is really important that, when things go wrong, people can use the formal system, but ideally I would like to stop them going wrong, to be able to look at where the hotspots are and to really focus welfare work on them.

[The Chair]

We have to finish at 9.55 am, but do you want to ask a very quick question, Amanda Martin? You have one minute.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Terry Jermy]

Q In the very first witness comments, I was struck by the observation that, because the current ombudsman role is funded by the Government, there is perhaps an acknowledgment that that weakens the role’s independence. Of course, the new commissioner will be funded by the Government as well. Are you aware of that concern? I appreciate Helen Maguire’s comments about independence. Are you confident that there are sufficient safeguards around independence to encourage people to come forward?

Luke Pollard: I am. The reason we have drafted the legislation as we have is to be absolutely clear about a separation of this commissioner’s office from the Ministry of Defence. I think the point that Mariette was making in her evidence is that the funding has to come from somewhere. However, I think it is the way that the commissioner is appointed, how they operate and how they build trust and confidence with our people that will build the independence in the role.

We can legislate for independence and separation, as we have done, but it is the operation of the role that will build trust with the people. That is why I will expect the commissioner to be on the road, visiting our forces and having those conversations, in order to build the trust. I will expect them to have a robust scrutiny process in terms of their appointment, and to be able to give Ministers a tough ride on the delivery of the issues that matter.

That is the reason we are doing this. If this role did not have any teeth, there would be no point in legislating for it. I want this role to be able to carry a really bright spotlight, to shine on the issues that are affecting our people—because ultimately, if we do that, we recruit more people, we retain more people and more people want to rejoin our armed forces, improving morale and service life. That ultimately improves our operational effectiveness as a military.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q A few of the witnesses today have spoken about “relevant family members” and the fact that that has not been defined in the Bill. Why did the Bill not adopt the existing armed forces covenant definition, which may have made it a little easier?

Luke Pollard: The Bill itself is not a stand-alone piece of legislation. It might be useful for hon. Members to understand that, effectively, it inserts legislation into the already existing Armed Forces Act 2021, which includes a section—I think it is section 340—that already includes the armed forces covenant. However, we did not want to specify the relevant family member in primary legislation; we wanted to be able to take more time to have conversations with stakeholders and define that through secondary legislation.

If the definitions were to change in the future, that could change. We have seen that the question of what a family is has changed. For me, a family is the most important unit of society, but what and how it is will be different for every different family. We are trying to find the right definition. I imagine the commissioner will have a view on that, and they can then make recommendations on that basis. That is why there is the option of being able to revise the definition via secondary legislation, which is an easier process than undertaking primary legislation—and the Armed Forces Bill comes round only once every five years.

[The Chair]

I call Andrew Ranger—quickly, please.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 12, 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 other related benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits in their investigations of general service welfare matters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I hope we shall not inconvenience you too much with regard to your journey back.

The purpose of amendment 12 is to confirm in the Bill that pensions would be among the topics that the commissioner can investigate under the heading of “general service welfare matters”. This is obviously a matter of keen interest to service personnel and their families, and having good pension provision for serving in the armed forces has always been an aid to both recruitment and particularly retention, especially for non-commissioned officers and officers as they progress in their careers.

I have often felt—and I include the time when I served as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence—that we have not really done enough to successfully market the value of military pensions as part of the wider service offer in order to convince people to join and then remain in the armed forces. In my experience, even many armed forces personnel did not appreciate that they had one of the few pension schemes across the entire public sector that was effectively non-contributory. In other words, their employer paid a contribution into their pensions, but they did not. In comparison, the last time I checked, most serving police officers pay something like 14% of their salary into their pension, whereas serving personnel still do not have to pay anything. Historically, the pension has always been—certainly as people become more experienced, get older and think more about their pension provision, much like the rest of the population—a vital tool in keeping people in.

I would like to raise with the Minister one particularly pressing pensions matter, which provides a classic example of the sort of issue that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be empowered to investigate. In essence, it relates to the potential liability for inheritance tax, relating to death in service lump sum payments. This follows on, unfortunately, from the IHT changes announced in the Budget.

I will refer to a briefing that was recently provided to me by Major General Neil Marshall OBE, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, which, I hope the Minister and Committee will accept, is the absolute gold standard expert on any matter relating to forces pensions—the sort of Office for Budget Responsibility of armed forces pensions. The AFP note summarises the issue as follows:

“Death in service benefits affect those who die prematurely. While benefits pay to spouses or civil partners will be unaffected by IHT, we understand that under the Government’s proposals, death in service lump sum payments for service personnel who die in the service and are not married or in a civil partnership would be liable to IHT. This would lead to military personnel being disadvantaged compared with their civilian counterparts”,

not least because their civilian counterparts would be

“able to place such benefits in trust and therefore outside of the deceased’s estate.”

The note continues to say that the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2005 and subsequently the armed forces pension scheme 2015—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, as they are colloquially known—

“saw eligible partners recognised as dependents and therefore eligible for benefits.”

Under AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, personnel do not need to be married; they need to have an established partner. The note continues:

“This was in addition to married couples and those in civil partnerships. This was a welcome reflection of societal changes over the past 30 years or so; introducing a potential inheritance tax charge on death in service benefits for those military people who are not married or in a civil partnership is at odds with the extant policy.”

To put in this in layman’s English, because in my experience anything to do with pensions does tend to be quite complicated: if Corporal Thomas Atkins of the 1st Battalion the Lone Shire Regiment were walking down his high street tomorrow—not on active service—and unfortunately dropped dead of a heart attack, even if he had a long-term partner and perhaps three children but was not married or in a civil partnership with that partner, then his family would be liable for a potential inheritance tax charge on his death in service benefit. Not only is there the risk of the financial penalty—I will come on to a case study in a moment to illustrate the dilemma—but the bureaucracy could result in payouts from the estate being delayed while the liability for IHT is being calculated. The Forces Pension Society summarise the issue in its very good briefing note as follows:

“At a time of extreme vulnerability, these lump sums need to be paid promptly, as they currently are. If death in service benefits become subject to IHT there will be a delay to the benefit being paid both while the estate is assessed for IHT and while the amount of IHT attributable to the DIS [death in service] benefit is assessed and the scheme administrator (Veterans UK) pays the tax charge.”

As the briefing note then goes on to explain:

“Many who would not previously have been caught with an IHT liability will find themselves in a very bureaucratic process that will slow down the already lengthy process of sorting out the financial affairs of an individual at what is a very difficult time.”

The Forces Pension Society gave several examples of how this could affect personnel in practice. For the sake of brevity, I will just give one, which I hope is sufficient to illustrate the point. Take the case of an OR-9 equivalent—a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned rank structure. This individual has a partner to whom they are unmarried, and on death leaves an estate worth £400,000 and death in service benefits of £248,292—four times their salary of £62,000. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pension assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, if the DIS benefits were included in the estate, that would increase the estate’s value to £648,292. The IHT liability will therefore increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents an increase of around 330%.

In fairness, we on the Conservative Benches suspect that this is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. We do not believe that the Government deliberately brought in these changes with the specific intention of targeting armed forces personnel. There is a debate about farmers and other groups in society, but I am focusing today on armed forces personnel and their families. To be clear, we are not saying that the Government did this deliberately in order to damage those people’s interests. Nevertheless, the default position is that they would suffer in the ways I have just outlined, unless something is done. Indeed, the Forces Pension Society summed up the problem as follows:

“We believe the Government has made an error and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs counter to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. The situation is recoverable should they act now.”

We on the Conservative Benches support that plea.

I hope that when the Minister replies, he will assure us that, following the consultation on these proposals—which will be overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury, not by the MOD, because it is a consultation on the IHT changes in general—he is confident that armed forces personnel and their families will be exempted from any potential inheritance tax liabilities on death in service payments, whether or not those armed forces personnel die in active service. I hope that I have managed to explain that in terms that the Committee can follow.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will in a moment.

I hope that, as an act of good will, the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment to remove any doubt about the ability of the Armed Forces Commissioner—who, as we heard this morning, will end up being appointed in early 2026, a year before these proposed changes are due to come into effect—to look in detail at this issue. Given the rightful concerns of the Forces Pension Society, I must tell the Minister that I am minded to press the amendment to a Division if he does not do the right thing.

Having hopefully explained what is admittedly a slightly complex issue, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, but before I sit down, I will gladly take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

[Juliet Campbell]

In addressing welfare and support for families, the shadow Minister has focused on pensions, but what are his thoughts on wider issues such as childcare and education, which we should also be thinking about?