Armed Forces Bill (Second sitting)

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Select Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. New clause 6 would introduce a veterans commissioner for England. We have three excellent veterans commissioners —the commissioners for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales—but they represent just 15% of veterans living in the UK. Some 85% of veterans live in England, yet there is no equivalent dedicated commissioner. As Members will recall, when the Minister asked at our evidence session on 25 February whether there should be a veterans commissioner for England, the three commissioners all expressed their support for such an appointment.

This is not a new campaign or issue. On 1 May 2024, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion, which included a petition that received 1,400 signatures, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs under the last Conservative Government said that it would appoint a national veterans commissioner. It started recruiting for the role, and the job advert stated:

“This role will cover England and any veterans matters which are reserved to the UK Government and are not in the remit of the Devolved Administrations.”

At the time, the RBL was delighted that England would have the same key public role of an independent advocate and voice for the armed forces community as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have had veterans commissioners since 2014, 2020 and 2022 respectively.

The national veterans commissioner was intended to replace the Government’s independent veterans adviser. The IVA was a UK-wide advisory role with informal influence; the national veterans commissioner, by contrast, was to be a public commissioner with formal oversight and scrutiny, looking at England and UK-wide reserved matters to improve veteran support and accountability. However, the post has never been filled.

Following the general election in July 2024, the new Labour Government moved the Office for Veterans’ Affairs from the Cabinet Office to the Ministry of Defence. The Prime Minister explained in a written statement that the change would

“enable the Minister for Veterans and People to have complete oversight for the entirety of service life; from training to veterans working with all government departments to deliver for our service personnel.”

In February 2025, at Defence questions, I asked the then Minister for Veterans and People whether he planned to appoint a veterans commissioner for England. His response was:

“I reassure the hon. Member that I work closely with my Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish commissioners. We are currently looking at the structures by which we support veterans across the whole tapestry of the United Kingdom, and we really want to put in place an institutional resilience system that gives the best care at the right time and in the right place to the right people. That primarily involves working with thousands of charities collaboratively and coherently to ensure that we can get the best bang for our buck from all the amazing volunteers and charitable services out there. A bigger review is going on. It is on hold at the moment, and we will let the House know more in due course.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 16.]

However, the new veterans strategy published in November 2025 made no reference or commitment to the creation of such a role.

I appreciate that Op Valour is ongoing. It was announced last year and was described as the first ever UK-wide, Government-led approach to veterans support. It is said that the programme, backed by £50 million of funding, will deliver easier access to care and support for our veterans, connecting housing, employment and health services across the UK. It has three parts: Valour-recognised support centres, Valour field officers and the Valour HQ. However, it does not provide the single point of overarching advocacy that a commissioner would provide. Neither would the Armed Forces Commissioner, which was established in legislation in 2025. I note that there has still not been an official announcement, nearly a year after the application deadline closed, of who that will be, but perhaps the Minister can provide an update.

The role of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to investigate general welfare matters in the armed forces. The office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman would be abolished, with its functions and responsibilities transferred to the newly established commissioner. A veteran would fall under the commissioner’s remit only where their complaint relates to their time in service when they were subject to civil law. There are time limits for submitting a complaint; only those veterans who recently left the armed forces will generally fall within the provision.

New clause 6 proposes that a veterans commissioner for England be appointed within 12 months of the passing of the Act. We have used the word “appoint”, because this is not a statutory role but a public appointment. That would mirror the position for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which all have non-statutory commissioners. I note that the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, while technically non-statutory, operates much closer to the statutory model than those in Wales or Northern Ireland. It is treated like an arm’s length public body, with a defined budget, a permanent staff, a published governance framework and annual reporting requirements. Although that is not the exact model proposed here, perhaps it is one that the Minister might consider.

Proposed new section 366A(3) sets out the commissioner’s core functions, which are to

“promote the interests of veterans in England…monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England…review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families…identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services…make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans.”

In doing so, the commissioner may

“carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans …consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations…publish reports and recommendations.”

Given the proposed extension of the armed forces covenant, and the issues and concerns that many people have, the oversight role of a commissioner is vital. To date, as the local government representatives indicated to us, the covenant has been delivered through enthusiasm, but we now need robust implementation.

Any report prepared by the veterans commissioner would be laid before Parliament. The role would operate for three years at a time, with a further chance to be reappointed.

I believe that all members of the Committee understand the value of a veterans commissioner for England. As the existing commissioners are calling for it, I implore everyone to consider carefully how vital it will be.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I rise to speak to new clause 6, which seeks to appoint a national veterans commissioner for England.

Although the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire has raised important issues about the needs of our veterans, it appears that the role of the national veterans commissioner for England would duplicate the role of the armed forces covenant. The covenant ensures that 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, the economy and the society that they serve with their lives. It fulfils that role, alongside Op Valour and the armed forces champions. The Government are also investing in improving awareness and understanding of the covenant across the armed forces and service providers. In combination, those things alleviate the need for a national veterans commissioner.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, after lunch, to continue serving under your chairship, Mr Efford. [Laughter.] That was not meant to be funny, but I suppose the best way to be funny is to be unintentionally funny.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which would legislate for the establishment of a veterans’ mental health oversight officer. I will come to some statistics later, but I think everyone in this room understands that veterans’ mental health is poor. That does not apply to all veterans, of course—many veterans, including the Minister and many Members in this room, take great agency from their service, so I do not wish to paint veterans as victims—but there are veterans who suffer with mental health challenges. Those challenges often start in service, whether they arise through the pressures of service, the vagaries of service life or the trauma experienced in combat.

Under the new clause, the veterans’ mental health oversight officer, who would be appointed by the Secretary of State, would essentially have a remit to oversee the care offered to veterans across the nation. It is doubly important that we seek, as we did this morning, not just to regularise and establish parity of care for veterans across the entire country, but to understand that people with mental health problems often find it hard to reach out. It is easier to forget people with mental health problems, which is why the establishment of the position is particularly important.

I will touch a little on my own experiences. I spent a couple of years in southern Afghanistan, including some periods in combat. I was lucky enough not to experience extreme trauma. Naturally, you do see some things in combat, but that was not my problem when I came back from Afghanistan. What I experienced was a deep sense of frustration and anger at what was effectively a failed mission. I know that some people in this room, including the Minister, served in Afghanistan. We were sent there to do the sharp end of Government policy. We do so willingly, of course—that is what we sign up for—but that policy was ill thought out and often put servicepeople in very difficult positions in which they had to make judgments in extremely grey areas. If the strategy had been slightly more clearly thought out, perhaps some of us who were there might not have experienced that moral injury.

Moral injury, which is actually a term that came out of the conflict in Afghanistan, happens where what you hear about the conflict is very different from what you experience on the ground, and the decisions that you have to make are very discordant. It is a bit separate from the “classic” trauma that we might understand as PTSD, but all these things come to the same. Personally, I wrote books, articles and pamphlets, which was my way of achieving catharsis and balance. I donated the proceeds of my first book to Combat Stress, a charity that supports the mental health of veterans and servicepeople.

I emphasise that many veterans, myself included, take great agency from their service and the qualities and skills that it taught them, but there is a significant minority of veterans who struggle with their mental health, and that journey starts when they are in service. Between 2019 and 2023, mental health diagnoses among active duty personnel increased by 40%. Anxiety and PTSD diagnoses doubled. Those are stark figures. In 2023, mental health disorders accounted for more days in hospital beds for service personnel than physical problems. There is a preponderance of mental health injuries over physical health injuries among our service personnel. Women under 30 in the military are more than twice as likely as civilians to report divorce. We can see the burden on our service personnel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Juliet Campbell Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

T6. The recent E5 meeting marked a significant step towards greater strategic autonomy in Europe, with the security of Ukraine being central to that. Does the Minister agree that, given the changing nature of the threats we face, working ever more closely with our NATO allies is crucial to keeping the UK secure and safe abroad?

[Luke Pollard]

I do indeed. Our commitment to NATO is unshakeable, as is our commitment to our European friends, especially those along NATO’s eastern flank that are being threatened by Russian aggression. We will continue to work with our friends, including: with Germany via the new Trinity House agreement; through the refreshed Lancaster House agreement; and with our EU friends via the security and defence agreement signed today. That is a really important part of keeping Britain safe at home and secure abroad.

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?

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

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.