Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We all owe a great debt to the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve us so valiantly in our Armed Forces, at home and in combat abroad. In my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we will never forget their efforts and, in many cases, their sacrifice during the height of the Troubles. It is a historical fact that, were it not for the Armed Forces and security personnel, there would never have been a peace process in Northern Ireland and we would not have the relative peace that we enjoy today.

For that reason, I welcome the Bill put forward by His Majesty’s Government to give greater support to service personnel and their families. It is important to state that there should be no impediment that would block the personnel from being treated fairly and equitably in all parts of the United Kingdom and abroad. It is right and just that the proposed legislation will treat Northern Ireland service personnel in exactly the same way as in other parts of the United Kingdom.

We have heard tonight that morale has been falling for far too long, as recent satisfaction polls clearly show. We have heard that, due to poor work/life balance, unsuitable housing, harassment and bullying, it is proving difficult to recruit and retain personnel. I therefore welcome the appointment of a truly independent commissioner who will not be drawn from the ranks of the military or Civil Service and, being statutory, will be able to ensure that the rights of all service personnel will be totally upheld.

I am glad to see that families are at the heart of the Bill, as it is often the spouses who provide the much-needed support at home. They often have to make sacrifices to keep their families together. It is thus important that the families have the same access to make complaints. Can the Minister confirm that bereaved relatives will also be granted the same access?

It is also pleasing to note that reservists will have the same rights under this Bill. The reserve programme in Northern Ireland is immensely popular, with twice as many people per head of population volunteering for the Reserve Forces as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I declare that I have a family member who currently serves in the Reserve Forces.

I hope that the proposed budget of around £5 million will prove adequate to allow the implementation of the important safeguards enshrined in this Bill. As time proceeds and personnel become more familiar with the scheme, it will be necessary for that budget to be increased.

I would not wish to complete my speech without referring to the rights of those who have bravely served our country and are now veterans. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out, at present there is no provision in the Bill which would grant the veterans’ commissioners similar statutory powers to the Armed Forces commissioner. Will the Minister agree that veterans deserve similar protection to that granted to serving members of the forces?

Finally, I will raise another important issue relating to veterans’ rights in Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, all the local authorities have quite rightly signed up to the Armed Forces covenant, which protects veterans’ rights relating to the provision of public and commercial services. Unfortunately and disappointingly, in Northern Ireland only five of the 11 local councils have chosen fully to adopt the covenant. It was extremely disappointing that in February’s meeting of Belfast City Council the Armed Forces covenant was rejected because of a nationalist bloc. Surely, as the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, stated, the covenant is not about advantage, it is simply to prevent disadvantage.

I welcome the Bill as I am sure it will ensure that the rights of serving personnel and veterans throughout this country and abroad will be fully protected.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Browne of Belmont Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require the commissioner to report on their interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.

It appears to me that there may be some degree of overlap between the roles of the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. Given the important role that the Service Police Complaints Commissioner plays in making recommendations on service police issues faced by persons subject to service law, it is important to understand how the two commissioners will work together and share appropriate information. It will clearly be unacceptable for one commissioner to tackle an issue relating to service police issues that touch on the welfare of service personnel without the understanding of—and those findings being shared with—the other commissioner.

Commissioners have previously been shown to be effective in a number of other sectors, but it is crucial that commissioners with complementary areas of work are not siloed from each other so that lessons can be learned as quickly as possible across the whole sector, to the benefit of all those who are subject to service law. Clearly, there will be some work that cannot be shared immediately due to its sensitive nature—I completely understand that—but it is crucial that what can be shared is shared, which is why we are proposing this new duty. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hay of Ballyore, which I have signed. My noble friend apologises for his absence, as he is attending his son’s wedding this week.

This is an important Bill, and one that I broadly support, as it will give greater support to serving personnel and their families. However, I believe that it is only right and proper that veterans who have devoted their lives bravely to supporting their country should be afforded the same protection as serving personnel and their families.

It seems strange to me that, while the independent Armed Forces commissioner will have statutory powers throughout the United Kingdom, the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such statutory powers. They are employed on only a part-time basis, with limited staff. Having said that, I have to say that all the veterans’ commissioners, within their remit, deliver an excellent service to veterans.

The proposed new clause is about how we engage in a meaningful way in our veterans’ needs and develop a close relationship between the veterans’ commissioners and the Armed Forces commissioner, as many of the issues they face may be of a similar nature and cross-cutting. Today, our Armed Forces veterans continue to need support for housing, employment and vital public services such as improved healthcare. Amendment 20 would have the effect of making provisions for the commissioner to hold regular meetings with the veterans’ commissioners across the country, where they could discuss specific matters pertaining to their area of the United Kingdom. This would allow the commissioner to be well briefed on the needs of each region.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own devolved Administrations, so the Armed Forces covenant, for example, may be administered in slightly different ways. It is important that the Armed Forces commissioner is aware of these difficulties. In Northern Ireland, the implementation of the covenant is solely the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and their agencies.

Unlike in Scotland and Wales, local councils in Northern Ireland have no role in the provision of housing, health, adult social care or children’s services, which fall to the various agencies. In many parts of England, Scotland and Wales, members of the Armed Forces who have urgent housing needs are given high priority and are not required to show a local connection to be offered suitable accommodation. However, in Northern Ireland, social housing is provided solely on a points basis, regulated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which is prevented by legislation from giving priority to Armed Forces personnel. The lack of a local connection will result in fewer points being awarded to them and, as a result, the applicant will not reach the required quota for the allocation of social housing.

This is only one illustration of the differences that exist between regions. The Armed Forces commissioner would benefit greatly by having meetings with the three veterans’ commissioners, at least once a year, to be made fully aware of the diversity between the nations. It is also essential that the Armed Forces commissioner is in close contact with the assemblies and their connected agencies. It is therefore important that there is co-ordination throughout the United Kingdom and that the commissioner is made fully aware of the problems that are specific to the veterans of the different areas.

Unfortunately, in the Bill as it stands, the Armed Forces commissioner has no remit to represent veterans. The proposed new clause in Amendment 20 would permit engagement between the Armed Forces commissioner and the veterans’ commissioners and would go some way to delivering an effective service for our serving personnel and their families. The primary aim of the amendment is to co-ordinate to address the needs of serving personnel and veterans right across the United Kingdom and it would go some way to improving the service afforded to both.

Finally, can the Minister say whether the veterans’ commissioners have been consulted on this Bill? If so, have they expressed any opinion about holding meetings with the Armed Forces commissioner? Do the three veterans’ commissioners hold joint meetings between themselves to understand the difficulties that they may have? Can the Minister assure me that the Veterans Minister will have a major role in co-ordinating all this?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, my general remarks will answer the various questions posed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I thank both for the way they introduced their amendments and the very important points they raised, which are worthy of consideration.

Amendments 19 and 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the Armed Forces commissioner’s interaction with the Service Police Complaints Commissioner. The Service Police Complaints Commissioner has a duty to secure, maintain and review arrangements for the procedures that deal with complaints, conduct matters, and death and serious injury matters. It is independent from the service police and the MoD.

I bring noble Lords’ attention to the fact that there is no overlap between the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner. Indeed, they both have an entirely different focus: the Armed Forces commissioner is focused on the general service welfare of our Armed Forces and their families; the Service Police Complaints Commissioner provides oversight of the service police complaints process to raise standards in service policing and secure trust and confidence in the service police complaints system. The SPCC’s role is similar to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is the police complaints watchdog for England and Wales. It is responsible for investigating the most serious complaints and conduct matters involving the police and sets the standards by which the police should handle complaints.

Turning to engagement between the commissioners, as the Armed Forces commissioner and the Service Police Complaints Commissioner are both independent, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers to work together effectively. It is likely that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including—importantly for the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto—the Service Police Complaints Commissioner.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent—as per the noble Baroness’s Amendment 19—would likely prove to be unrealistic. With an office of this scale and importance, it will likely take time for the commissioner to develop the necessary processes and to undertake the breadth of engagement outlined previously. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness—as well as the noble Earl—without needing to specify details of engagement in the Bill. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate time.

Before I continue, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to the Committee’s proceedings. Her knowledge and experience as Victims’ Commissioner are welcome, so we are very pleased to see her here.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for introducing Amendment 20, after Clause 5 and on veterans’ commissioners. It is in his name, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, and we completely understand why he is not present with us. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sought a requirement for the Armed Forces commissioner to engage with the veterans’ commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Browne of Belmont]

20: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Engagement with the Veterans’ Commissioners(1) In carrying out their functions under this Act, the Armed Forces Commissioner must regularly consult with the Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.(2) Engagement with the Veterans’ Commissioners under subsection (1) must have the primary aim of coordinating to address the needs of serving members of the Armed Forces and veterans across the United Kingdom.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the role that the Armed Forces have played in Northern Ireland in bringing about the peace process—I should have said that before. I listened carefully to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, and I know that the Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire forces, so I am pleased that there will be a co-ordinated approach among all the commissioners. Having said that, I do not wish to move by amendment.

Amendment 20 not moved.