Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Pam Cox]

Q What is your view of the comparison between the broad powers of an ombudsman and a commissioner in this scenario?

Mariette Hughes: The Cabinet Office guidance simply says that if you do not meet the standards for independence, impartiality, integrity and fairness, you cannot use the term “ombudsman”. There is an inherent elevation to “ombudsman”. There are no real prescriptive powers for what an ombudsman can or cannot do compared with a commissioner; it is all broadly set out in the legislation or the rules that govern. Each ombudsman scheme in the UK, whether they are statutory or voluntary ombudsman schemes, have different powers and remits. It is broadly what you make of it. It is about the gravitas of that term and the understanding in the wider landscape of what “ombudsman” means. We as the UK have accepted that an ombudsman is the top tier of fairness and oversight. Unless there are overriding reasons, I simply do not understand why we would use the term “commissioner” instead of “ombudsman”.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Q I have two quick questions. First, you clearly laid out what is new under the commissioner set-up, the broader thematic, but it strikes me that it is an “access all areas” pass, a backstage laminate—“Go where you want.” Do you think the legislation as drafted constrains or directs you sufficiently? How would you set your agenda, given all that freedom?

Mariette Hughes: Under the Bill as drafted, the remit is very wide. The key thing will be the secondary legislation—the regulations and schedules that cover exactly what the work looks like. It is also key that the individual sets out what their focus is and where they want to focus the work. There is a danger of thinking this is a magic silver bullet that will fix everything. You simply cannot fix everything, and even with the power to go where you like and look at what you like, you must have that focus on what is key to welfare.

The initial first year would involve a lot of scoping around, “What do we already know, what do we think we can fix, and what do we wish we knew?” We would focus on that within the broad categories set out in the Bill, but this is about welfare, not about going into all the back rooms and looking at all the sneaky files and exciting buttons just because we can. We must always ask the questions, “Why am I looking at this, what do I think I am going to achieve, and how will this make life better for service personnel?” It is very wide, and it will need to be set out in regulations how that is to be directed, but I would not want to constrain the individual in deciding what they need to look at, based on their experience.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Q My second question is, will you be applying?

Mariette Hughes: If I am allowed to apply. As the ombudsman, I can do only one term, but obviously this is a new role. If it is decided that I am allowed to put myself forward for the job, I would love to be considered for it. I love what I do, I feel very passionate about it, and these are the powers we have been asking for. It would also provide the opportunity to ensure that the work of SCOAF, which we have got to a really good standard, can continue uninterrupted, while then focusing on, “What does this look like, how can we take it forward, and how can we make this work?”

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

Q Thank you, Mariette, for all the work that you and your team have been doing. As the shadow Minister mentioned, the transition in what SCOAF has been delivering has been quite remarkable. I want to continue that journey.

One of the key provisions for the Armed Forces Commissioner is their independence. In my mind, if they are not regarded as independent, it will not work in enabling people to raise concerns and issues with them. Could you talk us through how independence works in your current role, and how you feel an Armed Forces Commissioner independent from Government, Ministers and the chain of command might operate on a day-to-day basis?

Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. The key point is that independence does not mean you are completely isolated, or that you cannot talk to Ministers and work collaboratively. It is about having an unfettered ability to decide how your work is shaped. When I took on the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a key thing we always got asked, particularly on social media or in questions and queries about our services, was, “How are you maintaining independence? You are funded by the Ministry of Defence. You must therefore be in MOD’s pocket and none of your decisions is actually independent.” All ombudsmen face this, because we have to be funded from somewhere and it is usually the sector that we are overseeing. It is not an unusual thing.

One of our key priorities was setting out to the public, in a way that people could understand, how we maintain that independence. We designed a governance framework, which, to be honest, I was quite shocked that we did not have already when I took on the role. That has now been laid out to the House, and it sets out publicly that although the Ministry of Defence will provide my funding, it is not allowed to touch my cases, design my business plan, or tell me what I can and cannot do in pursuing the aims set out within the remit of my role. I would expect something similar with the commissioner, setting out who has the power to do what. It will need to be set out that although they report to the Secretary of State and are funded by Defence, they are entirely independent in the decision making.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for your time this afternoon. All three of you will have seen much during your working lives and in the roles you have now, and had extensive conversations with service personnel. We are aware that there is an attrition rate from the service, low morale, dissatisfaction with the role and various issues to do with that. When we look at different surveys, key themes come out a number of times to do with accommodation, career prospects and family life.

The provision in clause 3 provides that service complaints can be made from people who are not necessarily service personnel, which is different from what happens with the ombudsman now. First, what are your thoughts on that? Secondly, one of the themes that has come through is the need for trust and transparency about the impact from anything that the new role does. How could that change enhance that?

Mandy Harding: I can take the first part of the question. I referred to the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker. That report was very significant because it identified that when one person serves, the whole family serves. Having access for families is a welcome addition and my colleagues at the Naval Families Federation will be able to speak more effectively on that. It is not my area of expertise, because I am a grant maker, but I am sure that they would have more to say.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I agree completely. We have a phrase in the Air Force: “Support the family”. You retain the service person by supporting the family. In respect to the question you ask, I would be supportive of the service family having that access. As a charity, it is important that we recognise the offer to the serving person. That offer is effectively a psychological contract that covers many different aspects, whether it be pay, pensions, housing, accommodation, food, or ability to get access to medical and dental care— and, indeed, the charities, too, play a role in that offer. It affects the serving families in different points at different times. It is very difficult to say there is a single issue or a few issues that are causing the level of dissatisfaction reported through the armed forces continuous attitude surveys and the like and through the families continuous attitude survey.

We are a families federation, and provide more detail on certain families. It is a multi-faceted issue, though, and difficult to pinpoint one particular place. It is important to understand that that offer is multifaceted and is a psychological contract at its very heart. It could take a number of things, which begin over time, to wear away the good will of that family, which then leads to dissatisfaction and, ultimately, people leaving the services.

Col. Darren Doherty: I do not think I can add much more to that, or comment on access to the service complaints system from beyond the serving person. I can speak about the wider family context and put it against what we provide.

As the Army Benevolent Fund, we provide a lifetime of support to serving and former soldiers and their immediate families, including the bereaved, when they are in need. That has built up since the Army Benevolent Fund was formed, 80 years ago. Even then, we understood the importance of the family unit and the importance of supporting the continuum of service, not just of the service person but of the whole family as they continue through the journey: joining, leaving and then serving, whether as a reservist, or a regular reservist, as in my case, and as a veteran, with the family that serves alongside them. That person, family or service person might be bereaved as well. It is about that total inclusivity.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Q You will have seen the witness list for today, and you will notice that the only people we do not get to consult are the military chain of command because their views are, for constitutional reasons, vested in the Minister. I will ask the air commodore and the colonel to rewind a bit to when they were serving in the military as part of the chain of command on frontline operations; I know you both served time in the training base. Do you see the potential for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, as drafted, to erode the authority of the military chain of command?

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am happy to take the question. Yes, I suppose there is that potential. The chain of command still has a vital role. Where I could see the benefit is that, having gone through and made my point about the offer being multifaceted, the response for the serving person and their family is multifaceted as well. The Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in that.

There will be times, I suspect, when the legislation will come into conflict—perhaps that is the wrong term—with the chain of command. I still think the chain of command must be the overarching way in which military effect and operational output is delivered. That is the success of how it is done. But I think that, appropriately placed, the Armed Forces Commissioner can support, augment and, in co-operation with the chain of command, improve the lives of the serving person and the family. There is a risk, of course, but I think it can work.

Col. Darren Doherty: I agree with all that. There is potential for the Bill to undermine the chain of command and potential for it to work against the chain of command; much depends on the selection of the right individual to do the role and on the role being developed and there being a framework for operating how the office goes about its business beyond what is laid out in the Bill. This is about building trust and confidence with those it supports, including individuals who might bring things to the attention of the commissioner, and also about the confidence of the wider organisation as well.

To answer your question, there is that potential, but everything that I have read in the Bill, heard in the debates and read in Hansard is in people’s minds. I listened to some of the earlier speakers today comparing it the outwith-the-chain-of-command ways that we have with dealing with issues now. You will well remember dealing with the padre and medical officers as something outside the chain of command.

All those things do not happen overnight. Those need to be built up as individual relationships in terms of trust within organisations. This is something new—a step beyond what the ombudsman provides. It will take time and careful implementation, from a practical perspective, for it to work. But I do see that there is huge benefit in having such an office there for the individual and the organisation and in support of the chain of command as well. They can potentially all work together.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q My question follows nicely on from that. Colonel Doherty, I was reading your CV in the paperwork and I was struck by the range of experience and the number of different locations that you have served in. I join colleagues in thanking you for that service; I was pleased to read that report. Given your experience of active service, and now your new role—your experience on both sides—do you feel that the commissioner would be seen as sufficiently strong and independent to encourage people to come forward?

Col. Darren Doherty: The legislation is certainly strong enough to put them in that position. Again, it goes back to the type of individual selected for the role and the trust and the confidence that they build with the community. I can speak only on behalf of the Army.

It will take a period of time to educate people on what the role is. That is why it is absolutely critical that the Bill is fit for purpose and, more importantly, that the policy and framework that sit beyond it, in terms of implementation, are right as well, and that we are absolutely clear where the boundaries and responsibilities for the office lie, and also the gearing between it and other offices.

That goes back to one of the issues raised a few times in the debate, which is the scope of the role—looking predominantly at the community subject to service law and how that relates to the wider military community, going back to that continuum of service. How that all interlocks with what is currently provided by the Minister for Veterans and People and veterans commissioners, where they exist, is all very important in the messaging and communicating with the community.

It is a wide remit. It is summed up in a few small sentences, but dealing with welfare issues could be incredibly complex and wide-ranging. There are very few welfare issues that do not straddle the serving family and go into the veteran space in a sort of time continuum. Those are all important parts of the messaging of what the role is going to be about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q The commissioner can access unannounced any of the sites within the UK, but the Secretary of State has the power to restrict access. How will that work in practice?

Luke Pollard: When the commissioner’s office is stood up, there will be a ways of working agreement between the commissioner and the single services about how things work. I am not expecting the Armed Forces Commissioner to use their unannounced powers frequently. If you look at the German model, the armed forces commissioner in Germany spends about a third of her year undertaking visits, of which nearly all are planned. The ability to make an unannounced visit in the commissioner’s toolbox makes those powers even more prominent, because if an issue is reaching a certain threshold, they can decide to make an unannounced visit.

The powers on national security that we have included in the Bill come from the importance of making sure that in the proper exercising of their duties, the commissioner is focusing on general service welfare matters. What we do not want to see the commissioner doing, as you heard when the current SCOAF presented earlier, is looking at the secret squirrel elements. I do not want them looking into the intelligence services or secret squirrel locations, such as the operational design of missions. That all sits outside their remit; their remit is solely focused on general service welfare. The ability to define that via secondary legislation is a prudent and proportionate power that we have in the Bill. I suspect what will actually happen in most cases is, once the secondary legislation that details that has been published, a ways of working approach will be established.

I cannot really imagine any Armed Forces Commissioner having a remit or operations that step outside that clearly defined general service welfare lane, but if there are concerns, there is also a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to exercise that caution on visits, especially if there is a national security consideration. We would not expect that, given the welfare focus, but it is a proportionate safeguarding power, just in case.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Q I am obliged to Maria Lyle for highlighting the issue about whether the commissioner will be a call centre or will produce big, thematic reports. The explanatory note to the Bill says:

“This Bill will establish an independent Commissioner to serve as a direct point of contact for Armed Forces personnel and their families.”

However, I read the Bill and it does not do that. It takes on the ombudsman’s powers—that is chunk one—but only for service complaints. If someone has a housing problem, it is rarely going to be subject to a service complaint; it will go up the housing route. The second chunk is about more general thematic investigations. The Bill does those two things, but I do not think it provides a place for people to go day to day when they have a problem, because that gets into the jurisdictions of local authorities and local education authorities—there is a series of routes. If you are telling us that we are going to change the service complaints procedure so that—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Jopp, you were in the middle of a question.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Q I was—well, I promise there was a question at the end of it. The point I was making was that the Bill and the explanatory note do not match, in as much as the explanatory note suggests three functions: first, taking on the existing ombudsman role; secondly, to act as a point of contact for all armed forces families; and, thirdly, the wider thematic piece. When I look at the Bill as drafted, however, I see two of those, namely the ombudsman duties and the thematic one. While loosely drawn, that will leave a lot to subsequent interpretation in order not to mismanage expectations. Having listened to the evidence today, do you agree?

Luke Pollard: Thank you. I do not think that it is necessary to legislate for the ability of the commissioner to have an email address, a website or a postal address. We gave a commitment on Second Reading that the commissioner should be accessible by a range of means. It is up to the commissioner to determine what that range of means is and to flex their resourcing to deliver that. The intent behind the establishment of the three functions as you described them, however, will be to provide a way for people who are serving to contact the commissioner. It might be for the commissioner to decide that, with thematic investigations, they operate a consultation function or a direct stakeholder function, in addition to some of the means of direct contact, but that is not necessary to have in primary legislation, which is the reason why it is not in primary legislation, but in the explanatory note, to explain the different roles that the commissioner will have.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Q I have another question. Two of the three witnesses identified the risk of the legislation eroding the authority of the military chain of command, but one said that he had had a good session with you and come away convinced that it would not do so. Will you enlighten us as to how you managed to convince the general, while the more junior officers were more sceptical?

Luke Pollard: The important thing is to look at the outcome and the focus. The commissioner’s job is not to countermand orders or instructions given by the chain of command. That is not in their remit and they would not be able to undertake that activity. Where they will be support for the chain of command is in delivering a better output for their people.

In recent years, certainly—the situation that the new Government have inherited—we have had morale falling in all our services every year for the past 10 years. For every 100 people who join the armed forces, at the moment 130 leave, and that is not good enough. When we talk about renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve and about the Armed Forces Commissioner being the first legislative pillar to do that—the largest pay rises for 20 years and increasing recruits’ pay by 35% are part of that, fellow travellers on the journey—we are trying to support people to join the armed forces and to stay in them longer.

We are aware that for some of the chain of command, the issues that their people are raising with them are not within their remit. For example, over many years and certainly in the past decade or so, we have contractualised housing out of the responsibility of a base commander. Therefore, the ability of commanding officers to respond to some of the welfare needs of their people has been diminished by changes in contractualisation and operating procedures. We hope to make inroads into looking at what we can do to support that by trusting our people more. As part of that, we want to have a commissioner who can shine a spotlight on the thematic issues—in effect, issues that affect our people and their families.

I do not see that as in any way challenging the chain of command. I see it as an ability for the chain of command to deliver their functions in a more efficient manner by having a greater focus on the welfare needs of their people. That is a complementary function to the many welfare needs already undertaken by the chain of command, but especially in those areas where they otherwise might not have any levers. That is why we suggest that the commissioner report to Parliament—via a necessary sifting of national security scrubbing of reports by the MOD—so we can shine a spotlight on that.

In opposition and in government, I have spoken to many people who are in the chain of command, and they have an absolute focus on improving the welfare of their people, but they do not always have the ability to improve all aspects of it. We therefore hope that the commissioner will assist. That is not the only area, but it is an important area—to ensure that parliamentarians of all parties may scrutinise where there is a deficiency in the welfare provision for our people and their families. That is what we hope to do with the commissioner.

[Lincoln Jopp]

We might return to that on Thursday, but thank you.

[Graeme Downie]

Q Minister, you mentioned ensuring that issues are handled and dealt with, and you said that previously issues had fallen away and not been taken up by the MOD. Would that not make it more sensible to have a duty on the face of the Bill for the MOD to respond to commissioner reports to ensure that action can be taken? Could you comment a little on that?

Luke Pollard: It is quite normal in legislation of this type for there not to be provision in primary legislation. It is certainly the intent of the Secretary of State and me to ensure that provision is given to that coming back, but I am aware of an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in a similar way. I am happy taking that issue and having a discussion about what we can do to ensure that sufficient attention is given to any recommendations.

When we were drafting the legislation, we tried to ensure that where a Secretary of State who has not been involved with the origin of the Armed Forces Commissioner may be in post, they cannot put in place any obstacles to the proper scrutiny of the welfare needs of armed forces personnel and their people. The expectation is that the Ministry of Defence would respond to those recommendations; what we would need to establish informally, which does not require primary legislation, are the methods for tracking the recommendations.

Certainly, as a new Government, we are very aware that many of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee, for instance, to Government over the past decade sometimes have not even been responded to or had information provided back. As part of renewing the relationship between Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, we believe that enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of what the Ministry of Defence does will produce better outcomes both strategically and for our people, so that we will be able to respond to those recommendations from the Armed Forces Commissioner, HCDC and other bodies that report on the welfare needs of our people.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Pollard]

I did say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would come back to those points, and I will do so, rather than responding immediately to his intervention.

A particular commissioner may wish to undertake an inquiry that involves many issues requiring regular and suitably senior legal input. In other circumstances, however, where a commissioner’s work is more routine in nature, it seema unnecessary to compel them to keep a costly KC on their books when other options may be more appropriate.

I should say to the right hon. Gentleman, as someone who is new to opposition—sadly, I was not new to opposition for some time—that making spending commitments is a dangerous sport. As a quick bit of maths, let us assume that the KC is full-time, that they are reasonably priced at £5,000 a day, and that they bill only for working days. Now, 260 working days a year at £5,000 a day is £1.3 million of billable time a year, or 24% of the estimated budget of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which, as we have set out in the explanatory notes, is £6.5 million, the commitment for an entire Parliament.

It is incumbent on us, in the spirit of creating an independent Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, to give the decisions on what staffing should look like to the commissioner so that they can undertake the staffing structure that is appropriate for what they have to say. However, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent the commissioner from agreeing with the Secretary of State a policy for staffing the office that could include a legal adviser. Indeed, I suspect staffing policy would not necessarily need to go into that level of detail; it would be more about the overall numbers, costs and specific terms of service.

Agreement of staffing policy with the Secretary of State is essential to ensure that the commissioner does not set out a staffing requirement that is disproportionate to the nature of the work being undertaken. It is not a way of preventing the commissioner from accessing the advice that they need.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

If the commissioner were to come to the Secretary of State and say that they would like members of the armed forces seconded permanently to their staff, what would the Secretary of State’s reaction be?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair question. As part of establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, it may be appropriate for the commissioner to say that they would like a certain level of military expertise, be it serving or in a veteran capacity. The commissioner could have that conversation with the Secretary of State. I do not think that we would immediately volunteer or immediately deny—that would be based on the recommendations of the commissioner and the dialogue about where that sits—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the amendment that we are making in the Bill to remove the requirement for an officer to make a decision. In one respect, we are seeking to remove military roles from the SCOAF function that can be done by a civilian. It is appropriate to ensure that if any military support is given to any part of the wider MOD family, we make the correct decision about whether it should be a military or civilian role, so we can ensure that we use the military in roles where they have the biggest impact in respect of our national security. However, I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised the issue of lawfare. The Government recognise that the large proportion of allegations targeted at our service personnel in Iraq were without foundation, and we acknowledge the importance of protecting our people from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner. The judgment by the court shows that Phil Shiner spread falsehoods against our brave armed forces, and the Ministry of Defence submitted evidence of his abuse to the legal system, which contributed to his being struck off. The Government are renewing the contract with those who serve and have served, and that includes protecting our personnel from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner.

The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the ongoing inquiry in the High Court into matters that are either the ones related or near to the ones related. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on them now, but I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion, which he knows I share, for ensuring we look after our people better than they have been looked after to date.

I turn to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I share her intention of ensuring adequate provision in the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Secretary of State will have an obligation under proposed new section 340IA(7) to

“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”

and to give them any “reasonable assistance” that they require. That will ensure that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively.

Should the commissioner feel that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise the matter in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism will provide the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. However, it will be for the commissioner to determine the shape and structure of any staffing or budget spend.

As the shadow Minister has confirmed, we estimate in the explanatory notes that the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner, based on careful scrutiny of the work of our friends in the German armed forces commissioner’s office, will be approximately £4.5 million to £5.5 million a year. That is a significant increase on the funding for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which at present is roughly £1.8 million a year.

While being wholly independent of the MOD, the commissioner will be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both the Treasury and the MOD in the commitment to financial resources—something I think we would expect de minimis on a cross-party basis. We heard from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman on Tuesday that this is a common model and works well, so including a commitment to ensure sufficient funding and practical assistance, per amendment 3, or increasing it in line with inflation, per amendment 10, is not necessary. Amendment 3 in particular may introduce a level of subjectivity into the legislation that would be difficult to measure.

I welcome—I think—the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford’s rejection of austerity budgets and the commitment to increase public funding in line with inflation. I suspect that he has not quite thought through the full implications of that across all areas of Government spending. None the less, the slow process of rejecting the austerity politics that I so know him for is interesting. I welcome that movement.

What is certain is that the functions in the Bill provide a format for the Secretary of State and the commissioner to have a reasonable conversation about the budget. The budget that we are setting represents a considerable increase and is modelled to deliver a service that involves not only a continuation of the SCOAF functions, but the investigations and the wider visits portfolio that has been mentioned. We feel that that is sufficient, but I suspect that any Member of Parliament who feels that the budget is insufficient, based on the reports tabled by the Armed Forces Commissioner in their annual reports as opposed to thematic reports, will be able to ask suitably challenging questions of the Government of the day about ensuring that staffing levels and financial support are right, just as we would expect for access and the implementation of recommendations. On that basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lincoln Jopp Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very pithy intervention. He pays me a back-handed compliment. How outrageous that His Majesty’s Opposition should try to raise a difficult issue in the middle of a Bill Committee; if I were to go back through the annals of Hansard down the centuries, I am sure there would be some precedent for that.

This was a timely opportunity, if I can put it like that, to table the issue. There is a consultation coming up, and I suspect, looking at his face, that the Minister was not really au fait with this issue—I am not being rude to him—but he is now, and I will be very interested to hear what he has to say.

The key point here is that death in service benefits have traditionally been payable if someone dies while in the armed forces or in the service of the Crown, whether or not they were on active service. A person who died back at home with their family would still qualify for the money. Under the armed forces pension scheme, they would still qualify if they had a regular partner. Under the Bill, however, because we are now dealing with the inheritance tax rules, unless the individual is married or in a civil partnership the exemptions do not apply. That is the critical point. I suspect the Ministry of Defence had not picked up on it. The Forces Pension Society, which exists for exactly this kind of eventuality, has done what it says on the tin and raised an issue that could materially affect armed forces pensions. In some ways, I am acting as their factotum this afternoon in tabling the issue.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I do not think it is, actually. This is important, because as written—without the amendment—the provision refers to a matter that

“arises in connection with ongoing service of persons subject to service law”.

As soon as someone is killed, therefore, they are not within the purview of the Armed Forces Commissioner and nor are their families, because there is no more ongoing service. Is that not the point?

[Mr Francois]

I think it is. Those who have left the service, are by definition no longer subject to service law; they are subject to the laws of the country like any other civilians, as that is what they have become, albeit they are civilians with the special status of being a veteran, which we should respect. But they are no longer serving in His Majesty’s armed forces. The amendment would allow the commissioner to expand their remit little bit in order to look at pension-related issues, which are something that armed forces personnel regard as part of their general service welfare. When they are taking that stick or twist decision, weighing up the pluses and minuses of whether to stay or leave—particularly if they have been in the service for some years and have accumulated a reasonable pension pot—that is definitely something that they will take into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

Members of the Committee will be aware that line 35 on page 2 defines a general welfare matter using its own terms; it says that a general welfare matter is a matter to do with welfare. Thinking back to when we all did English GCSE—or O-level, in the case of some of us—we know that using terms to define themselves is a bit self-defeating, because they do not really define anything. I assume that is deliberate, and maybe the Minister will tell us so. The provision is incredibly broadly drawn and gives the commissioner very free reign as to what they consider a welfare matter to be, with one or two exclusions that the Minister mentioned earlier.

I think that is important, because I keep being told, and I have read in the explanatory notes, that this is all inspired by the German model. When I ask what is so great about the German model, I read that it is because German members of the armed forces are really happy with it. On Tuesday, General Gregory said that to do their job effectively, the armed forces commissioner needs a clear and deep view of defence outputs. People being happy with a part of the bureaucracy is not a defence output. The only one that trumps everything else is the ability to deliver legal, lethal force. In summary, the armed forces need to be able to kill lots of people.

[Luke Akehurst]

Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—it is almost as if he read my speech. I was going to stay on my German theme and say that one person who interpreted that general definition of welfare was another German: General Erwin Rommel. He said that the best form of welfare is better training, because more training means fewer widows.

Although the Bill and the Minister attempt to draw the line between operations abroad and welfare at home, those things rub up against each other. For example, the Ministry of Defence has targets for nights out of bed. How much time can personnel be expected to spend away without their service becoming too detrimental to their family life? Equally, it has these things that sound wonderful—I thought it was to do with hairspray—called harmony guidelines. In fact, they are to do with how long the armed forces can send people away for without a specified dwell time in between for them to recuperate.

From a welfare point of view, it is perfectly possible that the Armed Forces Commissioner could focus solely on whether a commanding officer, a unit, a brigade, a ship’s captain or whatever was meeting the nights out of bed guidelines or the harmony guidelines. But the captain of that ship or the commanding officer of that unit might well think, as Rommel did, that more training was better in the long run for the welfare of their personnel. I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.

My other concern is much more strategic: by having an Armed Forces Commissioner with these extended powers and the ability to report to Parliament, we put a spotlight on one aspect of militarism, potentially to the detriment of other aspects of it, such as the defence output of killing lots of people. That is important because the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the defence board, will be making strategic balance-of-investment decisions between things such as buying a lot more jets and getting damp-proof courses for quarters.

Look at the figures in the House of Commons Defence Committee report into service accommodation, which was published yesterday. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were minded to rectify the parlous state of some parts of the defence estate, that alone would use up every single penny of the, I think, £2.6 billion extra that the Chancellor has found to increase the defence budget.

I alert the Minister to the fact that over time, the instigation of this parliamentary-level scrutiny of one aspect of the make-up of defence may well strategically shift us away from the defence output of lethality. It is a reductio argument, but we could have a fully manned armed forces with everyone giving 100% scores on the continuous attitude survey, great pensions and fantastic pay, but they cannot win a war. Clearly, that is not where we want to get to. We have to put in place measures and judgments that mean that the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the instigation and extension of their powers, does not undermine the military chain of command or the capacity to fight.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important part of the Bill. If I may, I will respond quickly to a number of the points that have been raised. The shadow Minister mentioned the continuity of education allowance. It is important, and that is why the Secretary of State has uplifted it to include the VAT, where it has been charged additionally by a school—not all schools will charge the additional VAT, as that is a decision for them—and it will continue to be paid at 90% of the fees. We have addressed the concern raised with us by service personnel to continue that 90% level for CEA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I only have two points to make. First, if it reassures the hon. Lady, I did read into the record that she had a conflicting appointment downstairs in the main Chamber and that that was why she was not here. I am not so sure about her colleague, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), but I did place it on the record that she had to be downstairs.

As I understand it, recruits would be subject to service law once they have taken the oath and joined the armed forces. If one takes that as one’s handrail, they should already be covered by the Bill. None the less, I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, so perhaps the Minister could kindly clarify whether my understanding is correct.

[Lincoln Jopp]

It occurs to me that, prior to taking the oath, there is a body of people who are prospective recruits. They have a material impact on morale, because if they take months and months to get through the pipeline to become recruits, the wastage rate increases and fewer people turn up in training, which means that the armed forces are undermanned. I would have thought that that was something the Armed Forces Commissioner might want to do a thematic investigation into. It is tricky, because these people are not subject to military service, but maybe the Secretary of State could nevertheless consider the issue in defining the role with the new commissioner.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her new clause and her concerns about potential recruits. First, it is absolutely vital that we fix the recruitment crisis that the armed forces have experienced for much of the last decade. As the shadow Minister confirmed, our armed forces lose more people than they gain, which is an unsustainable position. That is a dire inheritance, which fundamentally shines a light on the failure of the last Government to give our armed forces not only the people they need, but the systems and the support that people need to join and to stay in service.

I recognise that many of the people applying to join the armed forces wait for far too long, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It is for precisely that reason that the Secretary for State gave a commitment in his Labour conference speech on the “10-30 provision”: within 10 days from application we will give a provisional offer to join the armed forces, and 30 days from the point of application we will give a provisional start date. That is being rolled out at the moment. It will take some time to deliver across all three services, but that is an important step towards providing more clarity. When people understand how long the recruitment process will take, they are better able to make decisions about travel, work or their own life in that period.

[Lincoln Jopp]

If that strategy does not work or if it is seen to be failing, will the Minister make it clear whether that is something that the Armed Forces Commissioner could look at? As the Bill is currently drafted, they would not be allowed to do that.

[Luke Pollard]

I was coming to that point. At any one time, there are roughly 150,000 applicants in the military joining process, all of whom are still civilians and who would be brought under the scope of the commissioner by this amendment, were it to pass. That could vastly increase the workload of the commissioner and mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the shadow Minister for his views on engagement with veterans commissioners. To reiterate, the purpose of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to shine a spotlight on and be an independent advocate for serving personnel and their families.

Notwithstanding the really important contribution that veterans make to our communities—and our armed forces community—we are seeking to address the particular deficit of scrutiny on the issues affecting armed forces personnel because they are not allowed to take up the same channels to raise a concern as civilians are. There are preventions on them speaking to Members of Parliament and the media in the way that a civilian can. That is why we are addressing those particular concerns with an Armed Forces Commissioner, who will look at those personnel and their issues alone.

In setting out clearly where we are, however, I turn to some of the issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. First, I put on the record the importance of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the main Chamber just now—she was addressing the Etherton report. All the members of the Committee who were not in the Chamber—because we were here—will have missed the announcement made by the Secretary of State: we have adopted 42 of the 49 recommendations in the Etherton report and implemented them; we will have implemented all 49 by the end of the next year; and, for the shame brought on our society by how LGBT veterans were treated, we are increasing the amount payable to them recommended in the report by 50%, from a fund of £50 million to one of £75 million.

That means a standard payment of £50,000 for those LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexuality or gender identity, with a further £20,000 for an LGBT impact payment, which depends on their experience of the ban. From the harrowing testimony of many LGBT veterans, we know how they were treated because of their sexuality or gender identity—disgusting medical interventions and imprisonment. Furthermore, we will provide additional support for restoration of rank, if lowering of rank was involved at the point of dismissal, and for correcting their service record. Today’s announcement was a substantial one, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Minister for Veterans and People for championing it so clearly from day one in office.

In responding to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I do not wish to belittle or disregard any of the veterans’ concerns he has mentioned or those in the wider community. The focus on armed forces personnel is really important. As such, his questions sit outside the broad brush of where we are for this Bill, but I entirely understand his passion. I am happy to take those questions back to the Department and ask the Minister for Veterans and People to write to him with further details, which is probably the appropriate way of getting the ideas that he requires.

I gently point out that there is no shadow veterans Minister in the shadow Cabinet, a choice that could have been taken by the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. I would like to—I think—welcome him as the shadow veterans Minister, because he shadows nearly every other Commons Minister, which is quite a lot of work for him. When we were in opposition, having a dedicated shadow veterans Minister—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, who is now sitting behind me as the Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary—was important, because it gives due regard to the experience of the veterans. I hope that his party will be able to follow Labour when we were in opposition, and appoint a dedicated shadow veterans Minister, in whatever form that may be, in due course.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that this matter is important. The Defence Secretary sits around the Cabinet table representing veterans, and he does so very well. We have seen from the Etherton announcement today that that voice around the Cabinet table delivers real benefits for veterans in increasing the support available to them, but we need to ensure that this Bill is tightly drawn around the general service welfare needs of our armed forces and the people who serve in them.

Having said that, let me show a little bit of parliamentary leg to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, in terms of where the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation reforms could come into play. It is another policy of this Government to create a new area where, instead of people having the binary status of being in the armed forces or not—and we recognise that many veterans face a real cliff edge in terms of their lived experience and career trajectories when they leave service—they can rejoin the armed forces, removing some of the current barriers that prevent them from being able to do so.

That is an important part of being able to address the skills need, but we also recognise that in the modern world people may have careers, in uniform and out of uniform, that could be of benefit to defence. There could be an area of service where people serve, leave, serve outside in a civilian role, rejoin and do so likewise. In such circumstances, the general service welfare matters of the Armed Forces Commissioner would pertain to their experience subject to service law, but the Armed Forces Commissioner may wish to look at the rejoining aspect in due course, as part of a general service welfare matter for them as re-joiners.

[Lincoln Jopp]

There is something of a twilight zone. We heard from Colonel Darren Doherty on Tuesday that he had done his 38 years’ service and was now entering a period of regular reserved service, which, as the Minister knows, is a residual requirement to answer the call to arms. I have checked with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and I believe her period has finished. I think mine is finished, but I am always waiting for that knock at the door. I am pretty sure my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is still well within his window.

When examining the secondary legislation, it might be worth examining this issue. If that cohort of people felt that they wanted to report an issue, would they report it to the Armed Forces Commissioner because they were still liable to call-up, or would they report it to the veterans commissioner whenever that role is introduced? I believe that those on the regular reserve list are not subject to military law, but I think they are subject to criminal law in terms of their requirement. I am genuinely not clear on the matter, and if I am not clear, then each commissioner would not necessarily be clear as to which one is responsible.