Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest, namely that my son-in-law is an active reservist in the British Army.

It is an honour to move the Second Reading of a Bill that received cross-party parliamentary support in the other place. Noble Lords will know that the first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. That is why last week the Prime Minister announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in 2027, ahead of a further anticipated rise to 3% in the next Parliament. It is also why the Prime Minister has shown determined leadership in the search for an end to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, because Ukraine’s front line in the defence of its sovereignty is also the front line of our security.

I thank noble Lords for their many words of support at this challenging time for our nation and allies as we seek the best way forward. The unity of purpose rings out from this Chamber. At the heart of our diplomatic efforts to end the conflict are the men and women of our Armed Forces—the dedicated professionals who would provide the boots on the ground, and aircraft overhead, to support any such peace deal—behind whom are thousands of supportive families, whose own sacrifices underpin military service.

Like many noble Lords, I have had the privilege of meeting serving personnel, both at home and overseas, from visiting troops on NATO’s front line in Poland to those dismantling IEDs to counter the Boko Haram threat in Nigeria and those on training exercises in Bosnia, as well as visiting the carrier the “Prince of Wales” and many other visits, including to our magnificent training establishments, most recently RAF Cranwell. On all sides of the House, we thank those men and women for such service and for working tirelessly to keep us safe.

As the Prime Minister reminded us today so movingly:

“Tomorrow marks 13 years since six young British soldiers were on patrol in Afghanistan when their vehicle was struck by an explosive, tragically killing them all. Sergeant Nigel Coupe was 33, Corporal Jake Hartley was 20, Private Anthony Frampton was 20, Private Daniel Wade was 20, Private Daniel Wilford was 21, and Private Christopher Kershaw was just 19, a teenager. Tomorrow also marks the 18th anniversary of the death of Benjamin Reddy, a 22 year-old serving with 42 Commando Royal Marines, who was killed in Helmand Province in 2007. These men fought and died for their country—our country. Across the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 642 individuals died fighting for Britain alongside our allies. Many more were wounded. We will never forget their bravery and their sacrifice. I know that the whole House will join with me in remembering them and all those who serve our country”.


As a number of your Lordships will know at first hand, serving in our Armed Forces is both challenging and rewarding for our serving personnel and their families. It provides immense pride, satisfaction and career prospects, and the chance to see the world. However, there are also undoubtedly challenges to service life. The recent harrowing inquiry into the death of Gunner Beck in 2021 highlighted a tragedy that should never have happened. Our thoughts remain with Gunner Beck’s loved ones at this difficult time. The Army has accepted the failings identified by the service inquiry and responded to the recommendations to improve service life across its culture, policies and practices. We have made it clear that there is no place for any abuse or unacceptable behaviours within the military. There have been other such awful reports, with consequent recommendations and actions. The Government are determined to do all we can to make defence a safe and welcoming career for all.

The Government also acknowledge the current crisis in recruitment, retention and morale in our Armed Forces, at a time of increasing global instability and heightened tensions. Only 40% of our forces personnel report being satisfied with service life and 62% report the impact on families and on personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave. That is why the Government are determined to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve, and why it matters that this Bill represents the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can raise issues about how their life as a relative of a member of the Armed Forces impacts their welfare.

Looking at the continuous attitude surveys, we see that this is where the crisis we face in recruitment and retention is. It is for this reason that we have chosen not to include veterans within the scope of the commissioner. Veterans face a very different set of issues and require specific support, whereas the commissioner is being established to have a laser-sharp focus on the welfare of serving personnel and their families.

The Bill before the House marks a major shift in the approach to our serving personnel. It establishes, for the first time, a genuinely independent champion to hear first-hand from our Armed Forces, including our Reserve Forces, and their families. Through the commissioner’s investigative powers and their ability to report to Parliament, they will shine a light on the welfare issues that most impact our service personnel and their families and, crucially, what the MoD needs to do to address these. As is right in a democracy, elected Ministers ultimately must make the decisions, but the commissioner will make it harder for them to claim ignorance and avoid scrutiny. The commissioner will be a strong independent voice, holding both this and future Governments to account and, we believe, driving meaningful change across defence.

The Bill was inspired by the long-established and successful German parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, who has been championing and providing a voice to Germany’s armed forces for almost 70 years. I pay tribute to her as a brilliant example of how to champion armed forces personnel through her work, including investigations, defence site visits and her reports and recommendations laid before the German Bundestag. Our proposed Armed Forces commissioner, like the German commissioner, will have the power to consider the full breadth of general welfare issues that may impact service life.

I know from my discussions with several noble Lords that there is an appetite to understand the types of issues that the commissioner may investigate. The definition in the Bill of “general service welfare matters” is deliberately broad, to allow the commissioner to gather evidence and make an independent decision on the issues that are most important to our service personnel and their families. By way of illustrative examples, we anticipate that general welfare matters should include issues such as service accommodation, mental health, education, unacceptable behaviour, provision of services, and the adequacy of personal kit. Conversely, issues such as the overall defence budget or strategic operational and commercial decisions would not be considered to fall within the commissioner’s remit. I also reassure noble Lords that our Reserve Forces will have the same access as our Regular Forces to the commissioner and will be able to raise any welfare issues connected to service life, both at home and when deployed.

As several noble Lords noted when we met last week, the Bill also contains some exclusions which prevent the commissioner investigating certain matters. As well as a power for the Secretary of State to limit investigations on the basis of national security and personal safety, it is also important that the commissioner does not cut across ongoing processes connected to specific cases, such as criminal proceedings and service inquiries, so as not to influence or undermine the outcome. Naturally, individual cases or inquiry topics can be indicative of wider problems the commissioner may wish to look into for thematic reports. For example, the commissioner would need to avoid investigating a specific case of sexual harassment while criminal investigations or a service inquiry were ongoing. However, that would not preclude them from investigating wider patterns of inappropriate sexual behaviour across the service.

The Bill also provides the commissioner with powers to access personnel information and defence sites, reaching thousands of our Armed Forces wherever they are serving. This will allow them to hear directly from service personnel and family members. To facilitate their investigations, they will have the power to demand access to information and service premises and, in the UK, to make visits unannounced, ensuring that the commissioner gains first-hand insight into the realities of service life.

We have given careful consideration to how the commissioner’s role will interact with the often very sensitive issues defence covers. National security is of paramount importance, and we have endeavoured to take a balanced approach. I refer to the ability of the Secretary of State to restrict the commissioner’s access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason, and their ability to redact reports on national security grounds. Our officials continue to work closely with partners across government to ensure that the commissioner’s ability to access sites without notice is appropriately balanced with security considerations.

The Bill provides for the commissioner to absorb the existing powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, safeguarding the established independent oversight of the service complaints system. I take this opportunity to thank Mariette Hughes, the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, for the outstanding work she and her team have done to increase the efficiency and strengthen the independence, impartiality and integrity of the service complaints system.

In Committee in the other place, Mariette Hughes explained that her remit is too narrow and does not allow her to explore the root causes behind the complaints she oversees. The new powers of the commissioner will do just that, situating the Service Complaints Ombudsman system in a wider landscape of service welfare, and providing that coherent, independent view of those issues facing our serving personnel and their families. An implementation team has been established to ensure a smooth transition of any live complaints from the existing ombudsman to the commissioner’s office and to enable an effective set-up of the office and a full public appointments process.

The Bill also provides the commissioner with powers to report to Parliament. These reports will shine a light on issues facing personnel and their families and make recommendations to Parliament. They will be able to take on individual concerns from service personnel and their families, and build on these to launch wide-ranging thematic investigations.

While we do not wish to be too prescriptive, we anticipate that the commissioner will produce two different types of report. The first, an annual report, will cover the breadth of the commissioner’s functions. This would include the efficiency, effectiveness and fairness of the service complaints system, the commissioner’s functions exercised in that year, and any further matters that the commissioner deems appropriate. The second will be in-depth reports, including recommendations, following the commissioner’s investigations into thematic general service welfare matters. These reports must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State within 30 sitting days of receiving them.

Ensuring that this post is truly independent is of the utmost importance, not only to build the trust and confidence of the Armed Forces but ultimately to guarantee its success. As such, there are several safeguards in place within the Bill.

Notwithstanding the important national security and safety measures I have already covered, the new powers in the Bill have been created to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct these inquiries separately from government. These include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate; their ability to access information and enter defence sites, without notice in some circumstances; an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner; and the ability to report their findings to Parliament. Any redactions to reports will be limited to issues infringing on national security and personal safety. This takes us back to the purpose of the Bill: to establish a powerful independent voice to hold this Government and any future Governments to account, to ensure we can effect real change for our serving personnel and to fix the recruitment and retention crisis facing us today.

The Government are taking this landmark step of establishing a truly independent Armed Forces commissioner precisely because we must renew the nation’s contract with those who serve. The Armed Forces commissioner is a major step in commencing that important work. We owe our serving personnel and their families a commissioner with a single mission: to improve service life.

I look forward to what I know will be a rigorous and constructive debate in Committee and on Report, which many in both Houses and outside will follow. I am also particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Carberry. I am very grateful to noble Lords across the House for their ongoing support and interest in the Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions, for the general welcome and support from across the Chamber for the Bill’s intention of establishing the Armed Forces commissioner, and for the very constructive comments, and indeed challenge, to the Government on how we might improve the way in which the commissioner will work. On behalf of the Government, I am very grateful for that. However, it would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Carberry on her outstanding maiden speech. I hope that she will be able to show a recording of it to her four year-old grandson; I suspect that he is probably in bed by now—who knows?—but it was great.

I also say to my noble friend, without trying to upset her, that her father—who was a soldier, as she referred to—would be immensely proud to see his daughter in the Chamber here and to hear her give a speech like that. She said that he was an inspiration to her, and my noble friend was an inspiration to all of us in the Chamber who listened to her story. We look forward to her contributions in the future.

There are politicians who straddle party politics, and Ernie Bevin is one we all look to. My noble friend was quite right to remind us of the pivotal role he played, obviously as a Labour politician but also as a politician who straddled the party-political divide, and all of us who take a particular interest in national security and foreign policy matters look to him for inspiration. She was right to remind us of that. We are very grateful for her contribution and look forward to many more in the future.

Before turning to the individual contributions, I will address the most fundamental question in all of this. There are debates about what this and that should mean, but I will first pick out a point made by at least four noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Beamish, among others, asked: what difference will this make? That is the fundamental question. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there has been report after report into some of these matters, including sexism and racism.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked: what sorts of things will the commissioner look at? Included will be sexism, racism, misogyny, bullying and all the inappropriate behaviours that we could all list. My noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out that there have been many reports on these matters; the phrase he used was the “drumbeat” of reports that have taken place. There is not a single Member in this Chamber who does not abhor the things that we have read about.

The question is: how will the commissioner make a difference and bring about the change that we all want? That goes to the heart of the matter. As we develop the Bill, there will be arguments and debates about what this and that mean and about what should happen here and there, but the fundamental question, all the time, is: what difference will it make? As many have pointed out, I believe that placing something on a statutory basis, with an independent person choosing which reports they can undertake—with the status of the UK Parliament giving the individual that responsibility —offers us the best chance of ensuring that we can move forward with this. I believe that we can do that.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of independence. It is our intention for the commissioner to be stand-alone. That is why it is separated from the military; the commissioner cannot be a serving military person or a civil servant. We intend to create a separation of power and responsibility to try to ensure that we can deliver the objectives that we all want.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, very much for her remarks. The Defence Select Committee will be able to offer an opinion and can look at the individual, but it will not be able to say that this cannot happen or to block the decision in any way. The Defence Select Committee of our Parliament saying what it thinks about an individual will carry influence and weight in determining what should or should not happen. That is the correct way forward; it will allow the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State to take a view on that before making a decision.

The noble Baroness will note that we are ensuring that the successful candidate, whoever it is, will have to undertake developed vetting. She asked whether that would be the case: it will be the case, which is important.

A number of noble Lords raised national security. That is not determined in the Bill, but the Secretary of State will have the power, through secondary legislation, to make a list, if they should want to, of sites that they think the commissioner should be excluded from because of national security considerations. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked who would decide this. That would be based on advice from the military to the Secretary of State about which sites would perhaps be inappropriate, for national security reasons, for the commissioner to visit. There is an attempt, through secondary legislation, to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to protect national security sites from the commissioner, as indeed should be the case.

A number of noble Lords asked about family members. That will be in draft legislation and will be published before Committee. I shall try to ensure—because the boot has been on the other foot for me—that “before Committee” does not mean that, if the Committee starts at 2 pm, everybody gets the draft at one minute to two. I shall try to ensure that people get it with enough time to be able to look at it and assess it before the debates have happened.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked about the difference in Germany—and the noble Earl actually answered her question. The difference is that the German commissioner sits in the Bundestag. You could argue that taking the position out of that actually increases the independence and separation from the Government. You could look at it the other way and say that, if it is included in the Bundestag, that ensures that Parliament has more of a say. I would argue that, by taking it out of it, you increase the independence of the particular person who has that authority. That is the choice that you have to make.

A huge number of questions came up in the debate, some of which will have to be discussed in Committee. To confirm, the commissioner cannot make unannounced visits outside of the UK; they can make visits, but they cannot make any unannounced visits to sites outside of the UK.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, talked about the ability to take general thematic issues into account. That is the main difference. The existing Service Complaints Ombudsman has made the point that she has felt constrained by the fact that she could look at individual complaints but the ability to take a more general, thematic approach has been denied to her. She felt that that has been a very real problem.

I go back to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—just to show that I do listen, though this is more for Committee. She raised the issue of secondary legislation and referred to particular sections—I will read this to make sure that it is accurate. I can confirm to her that new Sections 365AA(2)(b) and 365AA(5) do not provide for support in secondary legislation. New Section 365AA2(b) does not create a power to set out further functions of the commissioner in subordinate legislation—that is, it is not a delegated power. It is wording that ensures that the commissioner’s functions are those that are set out in the Bill and could also include other functions conferred by other legislation, were that legislation to be in place. There are a couple of other examples of that which I will give to the noble Baroness in Committee, but I did not want her to think that I was ignoring her important question about secondary legislation.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the whole issue of cultural change and confidence, and building confidence in the new person is absolutely fundamental. The right reverend Prelate mentioned the role of forces chaplains, and I think we would all pay tribute to the work of forces chaplains; we know how important they are. Of course, we would expect the commissioner to work with forces chaplains in the development of their work but also in understanding the general service welfare issues. Forces chaplains will be an important source of evidence for that.

I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the engagement of his daughter to a group captain. He again raised the important point about confidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised. There will be a comprehensive communications programme. He mentioned the importance of making sure that everybody was aware of the work of the commissioner. That is really important, and there will be significant work to ensure that that is taken forward. He asked about the authority of the commissioner. I go back to the point that I do not believe you can give much more authority to somebody than the British Parliament statutorily empowering an individual to take on such a role; I think that is really important.

A number of noble Lords mentioned resources. The current resource for the Service Complaints Ombudsman is £1.8 million, so this is potentially almost a tripling of the resources available to the new commissioner—a significant increase.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for the work he does with the reserves, and I am very happy to meet him.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I just want to add a bit of clarity to our conversation about regulars, veterans and reserves, and what we imagine reserves to be. As Major-General Lancaster, I am head of the part-time volunteer reserve and subject to military law when wearing a uniform. Where we get confused is with veterans. When a regular leaves service, they do not become a veteran; they join the regular reserve, have a reserve liability and can be called back—indeed, we need them to put divisions in the field—and subsequently join the recall reserve and still have a potential liability. We call that the strategic reserve, and I think the Bill covers that. What it does not cover and make clear is when a member of the strategic reserve could make a claim. Is it at any time or when they are subject to military law? That is what needs to be clarified.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As I understand it, it is when somebody is subject to service law. I think the way forward with this, without getting into detail, is that the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, mentioned the possibility of a meeting. Let us set up a meeting between us to go through some of this in detail prior to Committee, where we can take some of it forward. As I say, my understanding is that whether they are regulars or reserves, it is within scope if that individual is subject to service law. Let us take some of this forward in due course. I just say politely that the Bill does not mention the word regulars either, but they are included. Rather than talk about regulars or reserves, we went to individuals “subject to service law” as an all-encompassing phrase to help us. Let us take this meeting forward.

In answer to one specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster—let me read it out so I do not get it wrong—the Ministry of Defence does not agree with the judgment of the employment tribunal in the matter of Milroy, and an appeal has been lodged with the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord. He may have known that, but I did not. I hope it is helpful to him that it is on the record.

There are ongoing discussions regarding Gibraltar. When I was in the noble Baroness’s place, I always used to ask why Gibraltar was not within the scope of Bills. It is the normal legislative process, but discussions then take place with the Chief Minister in Gibraltar to see how we apply the appropriate legislation there, should they wish it.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her remarks about the establishment of a commissioner. Her remarks about what we do with respect to the younger generation are important. She will know that veterans are not within the Bill’s scope. None the less, like the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord Hay, she made important points about veterans. They have been put on the record. I will ensure that the points that she and the noble Lords made are sent on to the Northern Ireland Office so that it is are aware of them. That does not answer the specifics, and I am not pretending otherwise, but I have taken her points seriously and will ensure that they are passed on to the Northern Ireland Office.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for her comments and the points that she made on the importance of the thematic reporting that is available to the commissioner. That is the whole point of it. Again, the commissioner’s ability to present their report to Parliament and for it to be discussed is particularly important.

I thank my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton for his comments; I am glad that he has recovered. He mentioned the need for a wide-ranging debate on the annual report. The importance of the candidate is crucial, and it will require a strong, determined individual. He is right to have pointed that out. I thank him for his support and his remarks.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, raised the importance of families, which we all recognise. He is quite right to have pointed out that families will, for the first time, be given the ability to make a complaint to the commission and for that to be taken forward. I confirm that bereaved families are included in the scope of the Bill. That is really important. It was made clear in the Commons. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised that point.

I thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for her contribution and for highlighting the crucial importance of the person who is appointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised this point and the need for cultural change, which is at the heart of everything. There will be continuing debates but, as I have said to her in other debates, if the commissioner sees individual incidents and individual complaints as being indicative of a more general welfare problem then they can use them as individual examples to generate their desire, intention or decision to investigate something more generally.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for reminding me of the Armed Forces scheme and of our time together on that. He was right to raise those questions. Of course we need someone with experience. I think I am right in saying—if I am wrong I will correct this in Committee—that although the commissioner and the deputy commissioners cannot be current serving military or civil servants, there is nothing to prevent the people they decide to recruit having had that experience. It may be that someone who was serving but is now retired could be recruited. If I am wrong I will correct that.

Developing relationships with other organisations is, as the noble Lord mentioned, absolutely fundamental. Again, you would expect that as good practice.

We will debate in Committee the ability to enter premises and when that is appropriate and when it is not. We are trying to strike a balance between national security, the ability of the commissioner to go somewhere unannounced when they think that would be advantageous, and being fair to the operational activity in the base.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hay, for his contribution and the points he made. My noble friend Lord Beamish’s massive experience is welcome and we will discuss his points further. We regard five years as an appropriate term of office, but I look forward to discussing that in more detail. The most important point he made, as I said, was about the slow drumbeat of reports. We have to get over that—that we just have report after report.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her contribution. We will define “a family” in regulations before Committee. Of course, accommodation is something that can and will be looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, we will take up the issue of reserves.

I think I have covered most of the points. I know I have not covered every single point. I thank the noble Earl for the points he made. The money does come from the MoD; it is MoD-funded. I have covered the points raised on general welfare matters.

In conclusion, we have had a really important discussion. I do not want whoever is in this position—whichever Government are in power—in five years’ time to have us discussing once again the establishment of some other structure, process or procedure to deal with the issues that confront us. It is unacceptable to continue to read about some of these things. We have to find a way of changing this and of making a difference. That is what the vast majority of those in the Armed Forces and those who run them want to achieve. We have to find a way to deal with this and for this Parliament to find a structure that really deals with it, so that we do not have further reports. With that, I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 8, Title.

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and I thank her for opening the Committee’s considerations of this Bill on a matter as important as the Armed Forces covenant. She has done a commendable job of reminding noble Lords of the three principles of the covenant; so I will not repeat them. However, I should like briefly to comment on some of the great work that has happened as a result of the covenant.

The Armed Forces Act 2021, which was taken through the House by my noble friend Lady Goldie—who sends her apologies for not being present in this Committee today; she is otherwise detained in the Chamber—imposed new duties on public bodies to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant. This means that housing organisations, health services, educational establishments and local authorities must all take action to ensure that service personnel are not disadvantaged. This has led to considerable improvements in service welfare.

For example, the Armed Forces community in west Norfolk raised concerns that there was insufficient dental service provision near the local base at RAF Marham. The views of families, supported by research from Healthwatch Norfolk into local health provision and user needs, were fed into the Norfolk health overview and scrutiny committee, ensuring the commissioning process reflected local and regional needs. This was all led and negotiated by the Norfolk Armed Forces covenant board, with partner organisations then collaborating to find a solution to meet those needs. NHS England worked closely with RAF Marham and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation to address the gap by opening the first NHS dental practice based on an MoD site. This is a direct positive consequence of the Armed Forces covenant.

The previous Government took significant steps, as I have mentioned, to incorporate the covenant into law. Given that it is somewhat axiomatic that the commissioner will already have due regard to the principles of the covenant, I should say, therefore, that the amendment does not seem quite necessary. I am glad, however, that the noble Baroness has moved it to highlight the positive impact of the covenant.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

Perhaps I may start by welcoming everybody to the Committee, and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way in which she introduced the amendment, and in particular the points she made about the general approval that everyone has with respect to the main thrust of the Bill. But of course, that does not negate the opportunity and chance for us to discuss how we may test what the Government are thinking and, where appropriate, suggest improvements.

I shall reflect widely on the various points that are made and my intention is that, between Committee and Report, we will have meetings between ourselves so that we can discuss how we might take all this forward. I say that as a general view as to what my intention is in order to make progress on the Bill, so that everyone will feel as though the contributions they have made have helped. I cannot promise the answers will necessarily be those that everybody would want, but certainly it is my intention, following Committee, to work with people to look at the various discussions that have taken place.

I apologise for the fact that the draft regulations dealing with the definition of what we mean with respect to a family have been made available online only an hour or two ago. Certainly, we gave them out as people came into the Room. There is, I am afraid, nothing I can add other than to say it was an administrative oversight, and I apologise profusely to everyone for that. I also know how irritating it is, having sat where the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is, to have to wait for regulations that do not appear. I can only apologise to the Committee for that.

It may have been the first time that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced an amendment, but nobody would have known. It is a very important amendment. I thank noble Lords and Baronesses here today for turning their expertise to the scrutiny of the Bill and for offering their board support to its principle and purpose. The ongoing welfare of our serving personnel and their families must remain a priority for this Government and the commissioner. The amendments we are considering today will do much to keep their welfare at the forefront of our minds in both Houses of Parliament.

I declare an interest, as my son-in-law is an active member of the Reserve Forces.

Amendment 1 is on the important issue of the Armed Forces covenant. As the noble Baroness said, its effect would be to place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. As I am sure noble Lords know—and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out—the Armed Forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve, and those who have served in the past and their families, including the bereaved. This Government, as the last Government were, are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. Indeed, our manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law with an ambition to include that in the next Armed Forces Act.

An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to the entirety of the Armed Forces community, which encompasses both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. As the noble Baroness knows, the Armed Forces commissioner is very focused on the serving community and their families. It will, of course, be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families, and I would imagine that those issues will be very much at the heart of the “general service welfare” matters that are within the remit of the commissioner to investigate. However, I strongly believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the issues of our serving community, and it is in that role where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make the real impact that we all want.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families. Therefore, it is not necessary to specify this in the Bill, but I do not, in any way, decry the importance of the Armed Forces covenant, which every member of this Committee supports. We aim to extend and develop that in the Armed Forces Act that is coming in the not-too-distant future. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, but I thank her for the thrust of the point that it made.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. If I may give a slightly flippant response to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who said that the amendment looks straightforward and is difficult to disagree with, so “How can the Government not agree with it?”, it sometimes feels with legislation that, however relevant an amendment might be, Governments of whichever flavour say, “No, we can’t possibly agree with this amendment, but we might be able to come back with something worded a little differently”. Government amendments might look similar to opposition amendments, but they may be accepted.

On this occasion, I hear what the Minister said on the specific reasons why the target audience of the Armed Forces commissioner is somewhat different to that of a wider role that would include veterans and other members of the Armed Forces community. However, I am still slightly concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out that it is axiomatic that the Armed Forces commissioner would be bound by the Armed Forces covenant, but one of our concerns is that the Government seem to think that the Armed Forces covenant is something that other organisations should implement; they have not bound themselves to it, somehow. I look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward in the next Armed Forces Bill—they seem to come along quite regularly, a bit like Christmas. We look forward to that but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, although I appreciate the intent of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we believe that this Bill should retain clarity and focus.

It is important that the commissioner is responsible for those who are subject to service law. That is the language used in the Bill and the term defined by Section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. As per that that section, those who are subject to service law include every member of the regular forces at all times; every member of the Reserve Forces while they are undertaking any training or duties relating to their reserve duties, are on permanent service on call-out, are in home defence service on call-out or are serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.

As per chapter 18, Terms and Conditions of Enlistment and Service, recruits become subject to service law once they have sworn the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. I swore mine 53 years ago; that is a slightly awful thing to say. They would, therefore, already have access to the commissioner. The issue arises when we try to include all those going through the recruitment process, as we have just discussed. They are still civilians, and many may not complete the process of joining up. Therefore, they would not be likely to experience general service welfare issues in the same way that fully attested service personnel may do.

In Committee in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces pointed out that there can be up to 150,000 individuals going through the recruitment process at any one time. If the commissioner’s remit were to be expanded in this manner, their case load would, in essence, double. This seems like rather an onerous imposition that could hinder the commissioner’s ability to serve service personnel as the Government intend.

On Amendment 10—I very much thank the Minister for the draft regulations—the only thing I would like to say is that I believe that there is already a precedent definition in legislation. The Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022 define relevant family members for the purposes of Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Government already have a list that defines family members, and it is fairly comprehensive. This begs the question: what differences will there be between that definition and this new definition? Also, since we have just received this latest definition, I ask the Minister: could we perhaps consider it and revert at a later stage?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Although I do not agree with her on Amendment 2, let me just say that I think the fact that she spoke to both that amendment and Amendment 10 has provoked a very interesting and important debate. I will deal with some of the issues that she raised when I make the formal government response to it.

First, I want to respond more widely and openly to the various questions that have been raised. I very much agree with the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. The Government are looking at ways to improve the recruitment process before the point of attestation through a review of recruitment and how it takes place, in order to try to improve the whole process, but that is separate to the whole point of the commissioner. None the less, the noble Baroness made an important point about how we could improve that experience for those who are applying to join our Armed Forces.

The noble Baroness spoke about kinship, and I will make some remarks about that in my formal remarks. Our belief is that the draft regulations she has received— I emphasise that they are a draft—are intended to be broadly drawn with respect to that. We have noted the comment the Delegated Legislation Committee made on how these draft regulations should be agreed using the affirmative process, rather than the negative process as is currently in the Bill. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others, that we will come back and look at that on Report to reflect the views of the committee.

Our intention in the draft regulations is to ensure that anyone who is closely connected to a serviceperson and feels the impact of service life should be covered by the commissioner’s remit. We recognise that this could be a wide-ranging and diverse set of people. Before I forget, I will say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that engaged people are covered by the commissioner.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

They are getting married in September.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I know it will change in September, but engagement is covered. Trying to overly constrain this definition may risk suggesting that family is more of a traditional nuclear family, and it may not reflect differing circumstances, such as the bereaved or non-traditional family set ups. We have tried to reflect that in the draft regulations; again, I apologise for their being late to the Committee.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I read the regulations very closely, but I am not sure how it includes engaged couples unless they are covered by an interdependence in terms of finances. If an engaged couple were not living together or did not have a joint bank account, for example, would they be covered? It used to be the fact that, in terms of considering casualties, there had to be a connection of financial dependency between the two.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I am advised that Regulation 2(3)(a),

“a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”

includes engaged people. If that is wrong, I will come back to it, but that is the whole point of having the draft regulations before us. As I said, these regulations are draft and will come back as secondary legislation in due course.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to say to the Minister that I think that is very woolly. As a Minister who dealt with casualties—I am sure other Members who have served in the Ministry of Defence will be aware of this—I can say that the Armed Forces family is very complicated. At a sudden death or tragic event, various emotions come together and, unless that is defined, you will have difficulty.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a really helpful comment from my noble friend. These are draft regulations; we are not going to legislate them now. The Bill will give us the power to create secondary legislation, and those draft regulations can be changed when people make various comments, including the ones my noble friend has made. Those can be taken into account and, if there needs to be change, there can be.

The whole point of the draft is that it gives the opportunity for noble Lords to make various comments on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, may reflect that kinship is not covered in the way she would expect, and therefore could make that point in response to the remarks I have made and will make. That is the whole point of what we are discussing. If this draft is not drawn tightly enough, of course it will have to be changed.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

In my time, I have seen some mind-bogglingly complex family arrangements, some of which would not be comprehended by these regulations. I say to the noble Lord that I do not believe that it would be possible to write something out that will cover all possible contingencies. I wonder what degree of flexibility there will be in all of this to take account of the unforeseen when it comes to very complex family arrangements.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

One would expect the complexity of modern family life to be reflected in the regulations. In the end, one would hope that the commissioner would exercise some professionalism and care with respect to that. I take the noble and gallant Lord’s point and my noble friend’s point, but it is extremely difficult to do this and to capture every single potential arrangement.

However, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, we are trying to have as broad a definition as we can, including as many different arrangements as we can, with some flexibility to try to capture the sorts of arrangements that we may not have thought of—such as those who are engaged and so on. As my noble friend pointed out, in his view, this does not adequately capture that; we will have to reflect on that and, where necessary, change it. A point was made about the difficulty of this; one has to try to do it, but we are ultimately dependent on the sensitivity of the commissioner, which is what I would hope we would do. The noble Baroness will have to reflect on the kinship point.

I totally agree with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, made about attestation. The commissioner has a responsibility for the particular individual from that time. I will refer to that again in my remarks, but I totally agree with what the noble Lord said.

I thought the intervention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was extremely pertinent. Many of us here are concerned about the abuses that we have seen. He made a particular point with reference to recruit training and the balance there must be between rigorous training to make sure somebody is fit for service with the abilities and aptitudes that one would expect and ensuring that that training is not inappropriate, bullying or in any way abusive. Certainly there is an expectation that, were that a concern or something that is brought to the commissioner’s attention, they would look into it.

It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, here with the experience that she can bring from her role. She is somebody who has shown that the “So what?” question can be answered, and she has made a very real difference with respect to victims. The “So what?” question is really important to the whole of the Committee.

Many of us who have served are sick and tired of reading report after report, but there are changes happening and improvements taking place. At the same time, in the evidence given yesterday to the Defence Select Committee by the Chief of the General Staff, the First Sea Lord, the Minister for Veterans and others, they were openly talking about their complete disgust at some of the things that still happen and their desire to continue to work for changes. In fact, noble Lords may have seen some of the changes that they suggested, one of which was the establishment of a specialist tri-service team to deal with the most serious complaints. This tries to take them out of the single service that they would normally go to, by having a tri-service complaint system. That was something that the Chief of the General Staff and others talked about yesterday.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

One of the issues that we discussed at Second Reading was the challenge of people actually accessing the commissioner. This seems to be a particular concern for those in recruit training. Old lags in the system will generally know how it works and will have friends around who can tell them; they will understand what they need to do to get the commissioner involved. However, recruits will be a bit hazy on all that and extraordinarily reluctant, in the environment in which they find themselves, to complain. This comes back to the point I made earlier: is there not a need for a particular set of arrangements for those undergoing recruit training beyond those applied to the broader swathe of service personnel?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a good point. Let us reflect on that and see where we get to. But I could not agree more with him about the nervousness that you would expect from a recruit who has just joined and done the attestation and is part of the Armed Forces, but who feels that it is what is happening with respect to him or her is inappropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

We are in danger of not overpublicising but causing confusion. The majority of the service complaints system which is lifted and dropped into the Bill still remains the responsibility of the single service. One of my concerns at Second Reading was, for a number of reasons in a number of different areas, that we will begin to raise expectations. I am not sure that the Service Complaints Commissioner would welcome it if, all of a sudden, they are having a whole series of complaints directed at them which rightly should go through the service complaints system. So we need to be very careful how we advertise this; otherwise, we will cause a right mess if we are not careful.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I agree with that. Let us be clear that the service complaints system remains in place; it is the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities that are being transferred into the Armed Forces commissioner role. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for allowing me to reiterate that point. He is absolutely right that, in most circumstances, the commissioner will refer individual service complaints back to the individual service for it to look into. I agree with him on his point about ensuring that that system continues and works in the way that we would all want it to, and the Armed Forces commissioner’s responsibility is with respect to the general welfare issues that arise.

In answer to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, when we look at how we publicise that—the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has highlighted the reserves—we will make sure that we take on board the point that the noble Lord just made so that there is no confusion, but that at the same time we create a culture where people feel able to bring something forward to the appropriate body, whatever that may be.

I just want to address another point that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made. It was a very important point, which should be reiterated, about how some of the poor behaviours we see reflect on the image in total of the Armed Forces. That is why it is so important to answer the “So what?” question.

I just say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate—or maybe it is to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—that, subject to the will of Parliament, we hope that the Bill will get Royal Assent in late spring this year, and the Armed Forces Bill will come into effect early in 2026. So that is the timeline that that we are operating to.

Just for information to the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s contract runs out at the end of 2025, but within the Bill there are transitional arrangements that are able to be made should there be a period between the end of her contract and the start of the Armed Forces commissioner role. I just want to be clear about that.

I turn to the formal remarks that I wish to make. Amendment 2 relates to the addition of those undergoing the recruitment to the Armed Forces so that they come under the commissioner’s scope. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s concerns about potential recruits. From the first day in uniform to the last, the Government are committed to all members of the Armed Forces and to supporting their families. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete attestation—as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned—transforming them into recruits who are members of the Armed Forces. This means that they and their families are within the commissioner’s scope.

The experience of a potential recruit—a candidate—is very important and, as such, we have set a new ambition for the Armed Forces to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days, and to provide a provisional start date within 30 days. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, pointed out—the figure I have is more than 100,000—up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope may vastly increase the workload of the commissioner, watering down their ability to focus on other key areas impacting service personnel and their families.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government’s work on improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent, highlighting that defence is a modern forward-thinking and forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career. Our aim is to attract and recruit more, as well as to maximise the number of applicants who successfully enter and remain in the Armed Forces’ employment.

Turning to Amendment 10, I will start to answer some of the points that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised concerning the definition of “families”. I again thank the noble Earl and thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I acknowledge her concerns about providing certainty to all Members on the application of the Bill. I promised that during Second Reading, and I have apologised for the late arrival of the regulations. But the debate that we have had from my noble friend Lord Beamish and others about what should be in those regulations will be something that we can return to as the Bill progresses but also when the draft regulations are debated by this place and the other place.

I welcome the Delegated Powers Committee’s report and thank it for considering the Bill so carefully. It provides a vital role in ensuring the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated powers, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before Report.

The families definition outlined in the regulations seeks to include all groups that have a close familial relationship with the serviceperson. In broad categories, the draft definition covers partners or former partners of a serviceperson, including those who are married or in a civil partnership, or someone in a relationship akin to a marriage or civil partnership—namely, a long-term relationship. I can hear others already saying, “What do you mean by ‘long-term’?” I just say that we are attempting to create a definition—I am just trying to head off my noble friend Lord Beamish before he challenges me on what “long-term” means. The serious point is that we are trying to have a wide definition, and we understand the difficulty that that raises. But we will take on board the points that people make.

The draft definition also includes children of the serviceperson—either the serviceperson’s own children or their stepchildren—as well as their partner’s children or a child for whom the serviceperson is caring or has financial responsibilities. It includes parental figures of the serviceperson, which will include parents and stepparents and anyone who acted in a parental role when the serviceperson was under 18, such as a long-term foster carer or kinship carer. The definition also includes a sibling of the serviceperson, be that a full or half sibling or a stepsibling, or someone who legitimately considers themselves a sibling of a serviceperson through their upbringing. Again, noble Lords can understand some of the difficulty that may arise with that, but they can understand our attempt to capture as wide a number of people as we can.

The draft definition also includes other specified relatives of the serviceperson or their partner where they are part of the serviceperson’s household, are financially dependent on them or are cared for by the serviceperson or their partner. It includes bereaved family members if they fall under any of the above categories immediately before the serviceperson’s death. Although the definition explicitly includes bereaved families, it does not specifically use the term “kinship carers”. The definition has been drafted to ensure that service personnel who are kinship carers, or kinship carers of the serviceperson when they were growing up, are in scope, thus giving biological parents and those who acted as a kinship carer the same access to the commissioner.

Going back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that is why there is a difference between the definition here and some of the other definitions with respect to the use of “families”. Our intention is to try to draw that as widely as possible and, therefore, that is why there are some of the differences that the noble Earl mentioned. I hope that provides some of the reassurances that the noble Baroness, on both her amendments, is trying to achieve.

I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate on this aspect of the Bill. We will again take into account the points that have been made and reflect on them, not least about the need for us to consider the draft regulations, as well as the points that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made about recruit training and a need for us to consider where particular arrangements may be made. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this fascinating debate on the two amendments in this group. Several of us have learned a lot, and some are now probably a little puzzled about the status of an engagement versus a civil partnership versus a marriage because, to most people, an engaged person is not the same. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that we might want to come back to that issue.

However, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for clarifying His Majesty’s Government’s attempt to define family relationships broadly, because some years ago, when I was first on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I was on a visit and was told of some frustrations of people not being able to get accommodation because of certain familial relationships that were not deemed to be actual relationships. The fact that the draft regulation is going to be broad in scope is welcome. The formal answer that the Minister gave when he was talking about foster relationships and so on probably covers the kinship aspects that we are looking for in that part of Amendment 10. We look forward to a further iteration of the draft regulations and definitions.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me correct something before we move on. I said that the Armed Forces Bill will come into force in early 2026. That is not correct; I misspoke, of course. The Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. I apologise profusely for that error and hope that everyone who listens to our proceedings, legal or otherwise, now fully understands that I meant the Armed Forces commissioner, which, I suspect, is what everybody in the Committee thought I meant. Just for the sake of clarity, I mean the Armed Forces commissioner will be set up in early 2026. The Armed Forces Bill must receive Royal Assent by the end of 2026.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying that point. I suspect most Members of the Grand Committee were not necessarily listening so closely.

--- Later in debate ---

I have one slight question that came up in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and at Second Reading. The Armed Forces commissioner should not be a member of the Armed Forces or the Civil Service. Does that mean that they can never have been in the Armed Forces or Civil Service? That makes the field quite narrow. Assuming that that is not the case, what sort of job spec are we looking at and what sort of individual will the Secretary of State be looking for?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

An individual can become commissioner if they have been a member of the Armed Forces, but not if they are a serving member.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the clarification. That is what I had assumed on reading the Bill, but I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely right.

The Minister has pre-empted Amendment 21 in some ways. It is simply a request for some clarification on the timeframe. We say in the amendment that the Secretary of State should publish an agreed timetable within one month. I suspect the Minister might find a reason why that should not be the case, but can we have a little more clarification on the timeframe? Will it depend on the individual appointed, or are His Majesty’s Government committed to the commissioner being in post on, say, 1 January 2026?

--- Later in debate ---

A minor point on Amendment 5 is that we have been through many iterations of this role, from the Service Complaints Commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman and now the Armed Forces commissioner with this Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and I have been involved throughout that 20-year period, in one way or another. I could be wrong, but my understanding, from distant memory of the original Bill, is that no serving member of the Armed Forces could be commissioner, but they also had to have left the Armed Forces for a certain period before being allowed to take up the position. I could be wrong, but that sticks in my mind; I think the period may even have been five years. Is that right? The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but it is relevant, because if a former member of the Armed Forces does this role, there probably should be a time gap.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As that was a direct question, I put it on the record that I do not know the answer. We will find it out, and if I do not write before the end of Committee, I will make sure that I say something on Report in answer to that.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

It just came to my mind now, and my memory may be wrong, but I thought that was the case. If it was, it would be interesting to know why that provision has been taken out as the Bill has evolved, because it is probably quite a good thing. On the one hand, I can see the advantages of having a former member of the Armed Forces but, on the other, I would not want them to be in the Armed Forces on Friday and doing this role on Monday, which is why that time gap would be useful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the very interesting amendments under consideration in this group all seek to push the Government on the terms of appointment of the commissioner. This is always one of the seminal issues when we debate the establishment of a new position in law. Amendment 3 appears—the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, can elaborate on this in his closing remarks—to interfere with the principle of exclusive cognisance. His amendment insinuates that Parliament must hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it would be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response.

Amendment 4, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, creates a mechanism for appointment similar, as has been mentioned, to the committee system in the United States. Their congressional committees are required to hold confirmatory hearings and votes, and they have the power to decline a president their appointments. I am not certain how such a system could be translated into our particular constitutional model, but I am again quite intrigued to find out.

Finally, on Amendment 5, I too think there is merit in this proposal, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. If the particular commissioner is successful and executes their duties effectively, why should they not be able to hold that appointment for two full terms of five years? You would get a proper continuation as a result of a slightly extended period. I do not quite understand the two-year extension; it seems neither one thing nor the other. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for bringing his experience and knowledge of many years. As he says, we have known each other for a long time, and I appreciate the contributions that he has made in the past and will make in the future—on not only Armed Forces and defence matters but many other things.

All the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lord Stansgate, the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Lancaster and Lord Wrottesley, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, were really interesting. Before I come to my formal remarks, as I said at the outset, I can say that we will meet between Committee and Report to consider the involvement of Parliament. At the moment, the House of Commons Defence Select Committee is how we see the involvement of Parliament, and I can tell my noble friend—this answers other noble Lords’ questions—that we will discuss the length of time and whether the Government still consider that the most appropriate period.

I say that without any promise that we will therefore change or alter it. I have heard what noble Lords have said and the points and contributions they have made. It is certainly my intention to meet to discuss their points to see whether we may move or if the Government are not persuaded. We will meet to discuss all of that.

I will just reply to some different points before I come to the formal remarks. My noble friend Lord Beamish will be happy that his amendments have at least caused the Government to say that we will have to reflect on the points he has made. He knows me well enough to know that I do not say that as a way of assuaging his views but as a genuine engagement that we can have to see whether we can take forward his points. I say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, with respect to the support they have given to those amendments and the various comments noble Lords have made.

I take the point that the German system is not exactly the same. As my noble friend pointed out, in the Secretary of State’s speech he spoke about our system being inspired by what happened in Germany. That is the point. It is not an exact replica but it has been inspired by it. In discussions with the German commissioner we have taken that forward.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, helpfully pointed out, the German commissioner sits in the Bundestag. The German model allows for their commissioner to be there and join in and that is not the role we will have for the commissioner, so again, it is different in that sense. There are differences, but the fundamental question goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made and that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made earlier; we are setting up the commissioner to answer the “So what?” question.

In answer to the question on how the military feel about it, they are very supportive of this commissioner being set up, so that is really important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right to challenge us; this is a difficult balance between independence and accountability. We are attempting to say that the commissioner has to be independent to command the respect of all of us and to do the job we need them to do: to act without fear or favour to deal with some of the very real issues we face. But we want them to be accountable as well.

My noble friend Lord Beamish has said that accountability should be done through confirmatory votes of both Houses of Parliament. The Government’s view, as it stands, is that that accountability should be done through the Defence Select Committee, with the pre-appointment scrutiny process there and its ability, once the appointment is made, to consider that further and report to the Secretary of State on its view of the suitability of that particular candidate. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has added another possible dimension to it. All of us are wrestling with independence versus accountability. That is a very real dilemma for all of us, but it is a balance we seek to achieve.

I will say a little about the Armed Forces commissioner and the process as we see it. I want to answer my noble friend’s question as it shows a difficulty. My noble friend asked why the appointment is on the recommendation of the Secretary of State and not a parliamentary appointment. He noted the fact that it was pointed out at Second Reading that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was a precedent for the sort of process he wants. However, there are several examples of similar roles where appointments are made on the recommendation of Ministers and not subject to the same process as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

There are, but there is also a very good example in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, where Parliament has a clear role in appointing that person. The problem with the pre-hearings by the Select Committees that my noble friend suggests is that they can make a recommendation but it does not have to be followed.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is absolutely correct that the Defence Committee can make a recommendation but the Secretary of State does not have to follow it. I suggest to the Committee that, if the Defence Committee of the House of Commons said that the person who had been recommended or offered the post of commissioner was totally unacceptable and inappropriate—not somebody who should be given that position—the Secretary of State would find it difficult in those circumstances not to accept that advice, although of course they could.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I accept my noble friend’s point, but is it actually in the Bill, or would it be under guidance afterwards? If he is setting great store by its role, it should be in the Bill.

[Lord Coaker]

I think my noble friend knows the answer to his own question, which is: no, it is not in the Bill—that is what he wants me to say. From his own experience, he knows that the Secretary of State said in the other place, and read into the record, the importance of the role of the Defence Committee and the importance of its recommendations. Of course, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for that. In my view, if the Defence Committee was so exercised about a particular appointment and had concerns about it, the Secretary of State could of course still go ahead but it is difficult to believe that they would not consider that very deeply before confirming that appointment.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, disagreed with Amendment 4 on the grounds of its length. Might His Majesty’s Government be open to a very small amendment, which could be “the Secretary of State appointing, on the advice of the Defence Select Committee”, or something of that ilk? That would meet the noble and gallant Lord’s concern about adding too many words to statute, but it would put in the Bill the sort of parliamentary engagement that we might be looking for.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Without saying whether that is a good or a bad idea, what I have said is that—although this is not actually in the Bill, as my noble friend said—clearly, our view is that going through the Defence Committee is the appropriate parliamentary involvement. We have said that we can consider the points that have been made in Committee, and I have said that we can meet to discuss them. Alongside that, we can discuss the length of term.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister will recall that, in the last few years, there has been a degree of disquiet, particularly on his Benches, about the view that certain appointments that should have gone through a fairly balanced process have veered slightly off course due to political interference. It just so happens that, about three hours ago, I was talking with a distinguished Cross-Bench colleague who is currently involved in two very senior independent appointments, helping the Government. This colleague had a discernible frustration that, in both of these cases—which are completely current and took place last week—a ministerial colleague of the Minister, not in the same department, overruled the recommendations of the advisory panel on who should be appointed or who the best candidates were. A completely different individual has been inserted from outside.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord is that we believe that the appropriate way for Parliament to be involved is through the Defence Select Committee. I have heard the points that noble Lords have made with respect to that. The appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner will be subject to the full public appointments process, overseen by the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so we would expect it to be a rigorous and open recruitment process. We expect the Defence Committee to be involved in the recruitment process and to consider the appointment once it has been made. Of course, the Secretary of State is ultimately the final decision-maker, but, as the noble Lord said, he will carefully consider what the chair of the House of Commons Select Committee says.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I point out to the Minister that the two processes that I was talking about were run under precisely the rules that he has just laid out.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

All I can say is that our belief, understanding and intention is for it to be an open and transparent process, subject to the scrutiny of the House of Commons Select Committee, which we would see as having a role. Of course, in the end, the Secretary of State ultimately has responsibility for the decision whether to appoint or not. We in this Committee all know the power, influence and significance of the Select Committees of both Houses. They are powerful and significant committees that carry a huge amount of influence and weight and, as I say, the Secretary of State will fully take them into account before making a final decision.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

On the appointment process, which we touched on earlier, I am grateful that the Minister will come back to me about the air gap, but could I entice him to offer a view as to whether he thinks it would be appropriate to have an air gap to prevent a member of the Armed Forces doing this job, in the same way, perhaps, as Ministers have a two-year ACOBA process after leaving their posts? Even if there was not going to be an air gap, perhaps a serving member of the Armed Forces could not apply for the job because there would then be an overlap that could potentially influence behaviour. It is important that there is a gap, and I would be fascinated to know what the Minister’s view is.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

It is very tempting to say what I think about this, but I am not going to. I think the Committee will share my view that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has raised a very important point and that we need to properly understand what the law is at the moment and look at his reference to what happened or did not happen in the past. I cannot, therefore, stand here and give a view, because I do not know—that is the honest, open and frank answer. But either in Committee next week or, certainly, on Report, I will be able to tell noble Lords what the situation is. At that point, I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, what my personal view is, but for the moment I thank him for a very important question about whether there should be a gap when someone leaves the Armed Forces before they can become the Armed Forces commissioner. It is an important point of principle, on which we will get the proper legal answer.

I will now read into the record the formal pages of my brief, which is necessary. I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their views on the Bill. I acknowledge their concern about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and their views on the length of the term. I reassure noble Lords that we are confident in the existing pre-appointment scrutiny processes giving rigorous and independent scrutiny by Parliament, with the House of Commons Defence Committee testing that the preferred candidate has the right skills and experience and giving its views before a recommendation is made to His Majesty, and a timely appointment process.

As I have said, noble Lords have made good and fair points—I have not mentioned my noble friend Lord Stansgate, but he also did—and we are happy to consider further how we can take all this forward. I hope that, with that reassurance, my noble friend will not press his amendment. I am also happy to consider further not just the scrutiny but the right length of tenure to balance the commissioner being able to effect meaningful change with bringing a fresh perspective to the role.

On Amendment 21, we wanted to say a little bit more on the implementation timeframe, just to clarify. I share the noble Baroness’s eagerness to see the commissioner’s role established and their office operational as soon as practicably possible. We have not included that level of detail in the Bill, as she points out, as that would be an unusual legislative step. However, I am happy to provide further details on the intended timeframe for employing the commissioner and establishing their office as soon as possible. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, also mentioned the timeframe.

As the Committee will be aware, several factors affect the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following completion of the Bill, and the role will be subject to a full public appointment process, regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, drafts of which have been provided to noble Lords. We expect that the process will continue in 2025 and, in parallel, we will undertake the necessary implementation work to ensure a smooth set-up and a transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman position. Therefore, I can now confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026.

I hope that provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. With the comments that I have made on considering the points of my noble friend Lord Beamish and others, I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for what has been a very good debate around these two amendments. I hear what the Minister said about this person being on a statutory footing—I think this was stressed in the Second Reading debate. When we get to my Amendment 6, I will explain to noble Lords that that does not necessarily give the protection that this individual requires.

My noble friend says that the Government wish the pre-hearing process to be done by the Defence Committee. I have no problem with that; I have tremendous respect for members of that committee and, having served on it for many years, I know the good work that it does. But what is to stop a future Secretary of State just ignoring that? That is why it needs to be in the Bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that either my noble friend or the current Secretary of State would do that, but we have to future-proof the legislation. We only have to look at the period of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, when a lot of conventions that had been agreed were just thrown up in the air, including what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to: appointments that had gone through and been agreed through the process, which were then ignored at the end.

This is something that we need to come back to. I hear what the Minister said—that the Bill is not a duplicate of the German system—but that has been the unique selling point that both he and Ministers have made about why this is needed. I welcome further discussions on the time limits and term limits of the individual, and I hope that we can consider this again. With that, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too will be very brief with these amendments.

I suggest that it is difficult to see how one should quantify what constitutes adequate assistance for the commissioner. Of course, the commissioner must have the necessary resources to execute their duties efficiently. The Explanatory Notes estimate that, as my noble friend Lord Lancaster pointed out, the cost of this new office will be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million; that is considerably larger than the current cost of the ombudsman, which is £1.8 million. The funding, therefore, has been expanded. Is it sufficient?

Furthermore, as is the usual course, the Secretary of State will have to ensure that the commissioner receives the correct level of support. I am minded to conclude that these amendments may not be entirely necessary.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his remarks and the points that he made. I also thank other noble Lords.

Again, let me say something about the general point around the reason for the Armed Forces commissioner; this was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Beamish. I have made my point. The noble Baroness and my noble friend were at Second Reading, so they know that I made the point about the statutory footing for the post then.

This is my personal view, as well as a ministerial view: it is of huge significance when the British Parliament, because of its concerns about some issues happening in the Armed Forces, establishes a statutory person or body—I forget the legal term—to undertake investigations into issues of general welfare concerns that can be raised by a wide cohort of regulars, reserves and their families. It has been given a statutory footing, rather than being a single response to a particular horrific event, although of course it is important to have an inquiry if something happens. To have a standing statutory office responsible for dealing with some of the issues that we have talked about and are all appalled about, with a statutory legislative basis, is significant.

I can take off the ministerial hat and become a citizen—and it means something for the vast majority of the people in this country to say that the legislative will of Parliament is that a statutory body has been set up to do something. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the issue of culture. The statutory body or office of the Armed Forces commissioner will make a significant difference to individual investigations. As well intentioned and important as they are, although they can shine a light, they cannot get to an overall pattern of dealing with issues that arise and are brought to their concern. My noble friend raised the issue of it being statutory. I realise and agree that, on its own, that does not matter and will not make a difference, but it is of huge significance as a starting point for setting up the office.

I will deal with the particular points as I go through, and I want to take up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. Part of what we have in the Bill is the ability to have transition arrangements, moving from the end of the term of the Service Complaints Ombudsman at the end of 2025 to the new arrangements —the transition to the office that we want to set up in early 2026 to try to overcome any particular problems that occur. I take her point about trying to ensure that we get that office up and running as quickly as possible, notwithstanding the fact that, when you set something up new, there are inevitably things that come up. But I thank her for raising that point. I shall come to the point on resources when I have made some general points, and come back to other points that noble Lords have made.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to the financial resources available to the commissioner. Both amendments aim to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient funding. The noble Baroness’s amendment would also ensure that they have practical assistance now and in the future to undertake their functions.

I reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Baroness that I fully support and share their intentions. It is crucial that the commissioner has the tools that they need, and the Bill has been designed to ensure that that is the case. Therefore, the intent behind this amendment is critical and acutely observed.

I want to point something out to noble Lords and try to answer the points that they are raising. The Secretary of State has an obligation in Clause 4, under new Section 340IA(7), to

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

It says that the Secretary of State

“must, in connection with an investigation … give the Commissioner such reasonable assistance as the Commissioner requests”.

That ensures that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively. In that instance, in dealing with investigations, the word “must” is included.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If it is already in part of the Bill, I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not include the amendment. He may wish to do what the department has already done in the briefing note that it gave us at the Ministry of Defence, in which it used “will”. I would settle for “will”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

We are trying to say that we certainly wish to see the investigative work of the commissioner funded. Therefore, “must” is appropriate in that particular instance, so we have included it there.

Should the commissioner feel that their funding was insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. As I have said, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism would give the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. I suggest that a Secretary of State would find it quite difficult to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner reported to Parliament in their annual report that they had been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements expected of them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and other noble Lords highlighted, the Explanatory Notes estimate that the running costs of the commissioner may be in the region of £4.5 million to £5.5 million. This represents a significant increase in the funding for the ombudsman, which was £1.8 million in 2023—a point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, noted. While wholly independent of the MoD in their role, the commissioner will still be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both His Majesty’s Treasury and the MoD in the commitment of their financial resources.

I hope that this provides some reassurance to my noble friend, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords on the Committee. As I say, we intend to ensure that the commissioner has adequate funding and practical support, both now and in future. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, but the quick answer is: no, it does not. There is a point that I think he is missing. I say this with no disrespect to him or the current Secretary of State but, as Robin Day famously said, he, like all of us, is a here today, gone tomorrow politician. We have to ensure in legislation that this continues on into the future.

The Minister gives an optimistic view that, somehow, having a statutory basis for this gives it some type of protection. Well, I am sorry, but I gave the example of the ISC—it does not, and I assure him of that. He said that the commissioner could raise this in an annual report, but I suggest that he reads at least the last eight years of the annual reports and statements—one is coming out next week—of the Intelligence and Security Committee, where this point has been made constantly and ignored by the last Government. That is a body that is on a statutory footing. Not wanting to get in the hierarchy of scrutiny, I note that you could argue that that is a little different to what we suggest here—but, obviously, for the victims, it is not. So, without that, the Minister may be fine, but I am looking to the future.

We perhaps have to have discussions about this. If the Minister has already given us a briefing note saying “will”—the noble Lord, Lord Russell, argued that—I would be happy with “will”, because that at least defines it compared to “may”. Discussion needs to be had about where it is within the MoD budget because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, you suspect that the Min AF or Veterans Minister will argue for this department, but they are the only voice in there doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to what I hope is the last of my amendments today, Amendment 11, on the further matters that the commissioner may investigate. Before I speak to my amendment, I have a question that arises from the two amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and others, and so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which is about the scope of the commissioner’s role. I think I heard the Minister say earlier in response to Amendment 2 that the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner applies as long as somebody is in uniform, from the day of attestation, and I understood it to be for the time that the person is in uniform, and that it did not also apply to veterans. I would be interested to know whether I have misunderstood or whether the amendments—

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I apologise if I did not make this clear. The fundamental principle of the Bill is that the people who are in scope are those who are subject to service law, and their families. That is a really important point. The other point is that veterans are not in scope for the commissioner.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I am most grateful to him for clarifying that. In which case, do I understand it correctly that Amendments 8 and 9 potentially go beyond the scope of the Bill because they talk about former members of the Armed Forces and their dependants? The Minister can come back to that, but I was slightly puzzled when I read those amendments.

Amendment 11 covers something that I hope is in scope, asking that the Armed Forces commissioner look in particular at certain more minority members of the Armed Forces. As seen in relatively recent reports—the Atherton report and the Etherton report—women and LGBT minority groups in the services have in the past been subject to particular disadvantages. There may also be other groups, so in many ways, this is a probing amendment. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which I agree with, follows a similar pattern.

I am minded also to suggest that the Armed Forces commissioner could look at this, with special reference to recruit training. This means that, while I will not bring back Amendment 2, we might nevertheless bring back the idea of recruits in training being a particular focus of the Armed Forces commissioner—particularly in terms of that person being able to reach out to those in training and make them understand that role.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Now I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. She is talking about recruits in training, so once they have done the attestation.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Yes. For the purposes of this I am making a verbal amendment to what is on the page; I am not proposing to bring back an amendment like Amendment 2 that would bring in hundreds of thousands of other people. I do not think that was ever the intention; the drafting was not as clear as it might have been. The amendment laid in the Commons and re-laid here was broader than it should have been.

Having listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my sense is that we should not only be looking at women, LGBT groups, BAME people, non-UK citizens and disabled people in the Armed Forces. We should also be thinking that this might be the time to think about the Armed Forces commissioner not just being available for those going through training, but it might be sensible to make sure that the communications are made to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Since this is the last group of amendments and probably the last time that I will speak today, I thank everyone for their contributions over the last three hours or so. We will reflect on all the various comments that have been made.

I turn to the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, moved at the beginning of this group, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—obviously, she sent her apologies—as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley. Other Members also gave their support. In his opening remarks, the noble Earl was right to remind us of the sacrifice of our Armed Forces and the esteem in which we all hold them. Although I do not agree with every aspect of his points, the intent of the amendment has a unity of support across this Committee. All noble Lords who supported him in moving the amendment feel that, and I thank him very much for that, because he has highlighted some important issues that I will come back to when I make the formal response.

I shall deal with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lady Carberry, about the public equality duty, and I will try to deal with some of the concerns that she raised about various groups. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that they are draft regulations, so clearly the remarks that she made about the use of the word “immediate” have been heard. Between now and whenever the draft regulations go forward to become regulations, that may change or may not, depending on the reflections made with respect to that. But we have heard the point that she made on that. On the other point that she raised, we will write to her.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised special needs, which I will refer to in responding to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as I will with respect to the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley.

I commend noble Lords for highlighting some of the important concerns facing our serving personnel and their families. I reassure noble Lords that the commissioner’s remit is broad and covers all general service welfare matters. Indeed, under this remit, they will be able to investigate all the areas that noble Lords have singled out for consideration in these amendments—the continuity of the education allowance, special educational needs, service accommodation, pensions, death in service benefits and the welfare of minority groups—should they consider these to be general service welfare matters within the parameters outlined in the Bill. That is a very significant statement to make at the beginning, and I hope it gives reassurance to the noble Earl that it is within the scope of the Bill, should the commissioner choose to investigate any of these matters as a general welfare concern.

A number of these amendments make reference to the families of serving personnel. Let me reassure noble Lords again that the concerns of service families were at the forefront when drafting the Bill. We recognise that the ability to retain the most talented service personnel is largely influenced by the well-being of their families: as I have said before, this is the very reason why we need an Armed Forces commissioner. Relevant family members are already included in the commissioner’s scope and, as I have said many times this afternoon and early evening, will be defined in secondary legislation. The draft families definition regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of the Bill have now been distributed to all for consideration—and we have seen the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, with its recommendation on the scrutiny of this power, and we will come back to that on Report.

I will read the current situation on inheritance tax, which is that:

“Engagement with the Treasury has confirmed that existing provisions in the Inheritance Act 1984 will continue to ensure that deaths in active service of a warlike nature are exempt from Inheritance Tax. The Inheritance Tax technical consultation has concluded and detailed policy and legislative instructions on the new proposals are now awaited with a further technical consultation to follow. The Ministry of Defence awaits these details and will follow legislation as per Government proposals and guidance will be developed for members in due course”.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am intrigued by this—and the more I think about it, the more confusing it gets. We are clear that, within the Bill, qualification is subject to service law. Of course, members of the Regular Forces are subject to service law 24/7, 365 days a year. It is about the definition of “active service”. Of course, Lee Rigby was murdered outside Woolwich Barracks. Would he, under the new provisions, now not be subject to this payment, or be taxed on it, even though he was probably walking back to work? Would an Army reservist who is claiming a day’s pay travelling to work, or on the way back from work, now not qualify if they were to have an accident? It is an absolute minefield. What would be useful, if I may say so, is a degree of consistency in how we seek to apply the law when we are using service law as a qualification, and subject to service law, as opposed this almost sub-definition as to on duty and off duty. Most service personnel would consider themselves to be on duty 24/7.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The contribution the noble Lord has just made shows the advantage of his experience and knowledge. We will certainly consider that, and I will write to him and circulate the letter to members of the Committee, because some of it is quite technical and legal, and subject to all sorts of various laws under different pieces of legislation. I shall ask my officials to reflect on the point. I could hazard an answer, but I will get a proper, official answer, send it to the noble Lord, copy it to all members of the Committee and place a copy in the Library. I hope that that is satisfactory to the noble Lord, because the points that he makes are important, and I do not want inadvertently to mislead or misinform the Committee.

I turn briefly to some of the other points related to the points the noble Lord has made. I note that the significant Amendment 8, raising the Continuity of Education Allowance, special educational needs and service accommodation, refers to former service personnel. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the commissioner’s scope is deliberately tightly drawn to focus on serving personnel and their families, rather than former service personnel. As civilians, veterans already have full access to a range of mechanisms for support and redress and to enable their voices to be heard. Having said that, I have been in the noble Lord’s position, and I know that people sometimes say, “That amendment is not tight enough, it included something that is not within scope”, but that does not alter the fact that the intention of the amendment and of noble Lords, is to draw attention to issues of real concern with respect to serving personnel. As such, of course there are issues around special needs, which the Armed Forces covenant seeks to ensure are addressed properly. When service personnel go abroad, they take with them a form by which they can try to ensure that they are given support.

Special needs is a very real problem. I have to say as an aside that I think that special needs is an issue for all of us across society, from what I understand from friends, family and colleagues. Notwithstanding that, there are obviously particular circumstances with respect to serving personnel, and that needs to be reflected. Certainly, the Armed Forces covenant seeks to address that by saying that nobody should be disadvantaged through their service, and special needs is an example of that.

On the continuity of education allowance, I will not read out all the various statements in my brief. We have had a debate about it in Parliament, and I have answered questions. The noble Earl will have seen the rise in the continuity of education allowance to 90% of that cost, which—I tell him gently—was the policy of the previous Government, too. We cover that 90%. The impact on the behaviour of service personnel in their choice of education has been very limited in terms of the number of people who have changed their decisions on the basis of that change in the law. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, very few people have changed their actions. Notwithstanding that, the noble Earl was right to raise it. We reflected on it as part of the challenge that the Government have and decided that an increase in the continuity of education allowance was important, whatever the rights and wrongs of the overall general government policy, which, obviously, I support.

Turning to Amendment 9, I acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness about pensions and death-in-service benefits, which impact both current and ex-service personnel, as well as their dependants. The amendment seeks to specify pensions, and wider associated benefits for dependants, as a particular area for the commissioner to focus on. As I said, it also seeks to allow former members to raise issues about pensions to the commissioner. Pensions and death-in-service benefits for dependants are of course extremely important and are not precluded from the scope of the commissioner. In the case of pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel and veterans to raise complaints: the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision-makers within the Defence Business Services authority. If unhappy, they—like the vast majority of us—are able to appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman.

I reassure the noble Baroness that I am sympathetic to what Amendments 11 and 12 seek to achieve. The Armed Forces and their families represent a wide-ranging and diverse community, and it is important to acknowledge the experiences of minority groups and service personnel aged under 18 within the Armed Forces. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly, continually raises this issue. Her opinion on the policies for recruiting under-18s to the Armed Forces differs from mine, but let me make it clear, as she and every member of the Committee has, and as we discussed earlier, that any abuse of anybody is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with quickly and forcefully. It is important to address and tackle any matters when they arise that are unique to one or more of these groups. It is vital that any member of the Armed Forces can access the commissioner and trust that he or she will consider their issues, regardless of who they are, where they serve and what they do.

I draw the Committee’s attention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, helpfully did, to paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which adds the commissioner to the list of public bodies captured by the public sector equality duty. The commissioner will already have a duty under the Equality Act 2010, which will cover all the characteristics listed in the amendment.

Finally, I assure the Committee that the commissioner’s reporting functions will enable the commissioner to report on any matters that have been raised and to make recommendations in relation to any issues related to minority groups—or, indeed, any of the other issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and others. Let me restate that the commissioner will be able to investigate any matters that may materially impact the welfare of those who are subject to service law and their families. It is not necessary to specify this level of detail on any of these matters in legislation.

In fact, creating a list of individual matters for the commissioner’s remit could suggest that these topics are more relevant or important than others and may indirectly narrow the scope of what they consider, which would not necessarily be a desirable outcome. It could also be seen as contrary to upholding the commissioner’s independence. In other words, as soon as one starts to generate lists, one always ends up with an (f) or (g) that says, “and anything else that may be of significance”.

I hope that I have provided the noble Earl, Lord Minto, with the necessary reassurance. I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate; I look forward to continuing our debate and discussion on further amendments on Monday.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for another interesting debate.

I will comment briefly on Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Bennett. For the reasons that we have discussed, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide a list of groups that should receive special treatment from the commissioner. As we covered earlier, the Bill applies to all those who are subject to service law and their families. This includes all members of the regular forces and the Reserve Forces, not just a particular group of service members. This list is not exhaustive, obviously, but that causes an issue in itself.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I have no doubt that he understands the issues raised. I am sure that he has received representations from those affected, and I know he takes a genuine interest in the welfare of all service personnel. Having said that, these are issues that the commissioner really should investigate; I hope that this will be the case once the office is established. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this set of amendments, really to provide some balance, because I feel that we should hear both sides of the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in introducing these amendments, said that the commissioner should not be visiting without the Secretary of State being aware, and I entirely agree with that. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the person with political responsibility, who needs to know what is going on and whether the commissioner has identified a potential problem. However, not being aware is not the same as having seven days’ notice. There is a very large gap between those two things.

What we have just heard from the noble and gallant Lord about the commanding officer having the right to deny access is, I am aware, not directly in line with these amendments. However, on day one in Committee we talked about how the ombudsman, as structured, has not worked and has not had sufficient powers. We have to be careful to make sure that we are not putting a commissioner in the same position here. We have to be realistic: there may be a systemic issue, such as those we talked about on the previous day in Committee, and a concern about the treatment of female service people. We might hope that a commander would always want that issue to be exposed and understood, but we cannot guarantee that, and it is really important that we do not disempower the commissioner with changes to this Bill before they are even created and put in place.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, back to her place today; I know she was busy elsewhere in the House of Lords on our first day. It is welcome to see her here. Both she and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, asked about the opportunity to discuss the points that have been made, and we can of course meet between Committee and Report to do so. I can promise the meeting, but I cannot promise the outcome. To be frank, as noble Lords will know, that is how we in this House conduct business, improve legislation and achieve the objective that we all want: the commissioner being effective and having the appropriate powers to do the task they undertake.

As noble Lords know, I like to make some general remarks before making formal points; I hope that is helpful to the Committee. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the balance between the powers of the Secretary of State and of the commissioner, and I will say something about that. We have tried very hard to balance those powers. I also hear the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about the importance of national security. There may be elements of a particular base that one would expect the commissioner to be precluded from visiting for national security reasons, even if it is not the whole base; there is also the role of the commanding officer to consider.

On the question of intention, if we take the example of a normal decision of the commissioner to visit a base, the noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord will see that there is a requirement in the Bill for the commissioner to notify the Secretary of State that they are visiting a particular base:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of the proposal within such period before exercising the power as the Commissioner considers appropriate”.


The noble Baroness’s amendment would require that that happen at least seven days before the commissioner intends to exercise the power. The expectation would be that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer that such a visit was to take place.

However, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, under the Bill a confidential list will be drawn up saying where the Secretary of State believes it inappropriate for the commissioner to visit because of national security reasons. That will be shared with the commissioner, although it will remain confidential. But we will take up the point made by the noble and gallant Lord about how that will work with a base only a small part of which may be subject to national security concerns.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

The Minister said that, ordinarily, the commissioner will give notice to the Secretary of State. But equally—this comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—we know that, in order to be truly effective, in some circumstances the Armed Forces commissioner will need to give little or no notice. That is fine because that helps the effectiveness of the commissioner, but a commanding officer is then exposed to the possibility of the commissioner wanting access to a site to which he or she should not properly be allowed access, because of national security. So, in proposing that the commanding officer have a backstop ability to deny access, we are seeking to improve the power and authority of the commissioner, because that then reduces the need for undue notice on their behalf.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I understand that, and I will come to the “no notice” point in a moment. I was simply pointing out to the Committee that, as the Bill stands, new Section 340IB(3) states:

“If the Commissioner proposes to exercise the power under subsection (1), the Commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice”.


The expectation is that the Secretary of State would then tell the commanding officer; however, sites can be excluded on national security grounds because a list will have been drawn up. But new Section 340IB(4) states:

“Subsection (3) does not apply, so far as relating to service premises in the United Kingdom”—


this goes to the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made—

“if the Commissioner considers that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power”.

As I say, in all this there is a balance to be struck between notifying the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State notifying the commissioner; the ability, however, to have “no notice” visits; and alongside that protecting national security and indeed personal safety. The noble and gallant Lord made the important point that you might want to protect an entire base or facility, and perhaps everyone would be more open to understanding why that base is excluded. But he also pointed out that it may be a question of protecting just part of the base, and even a commanding officer might not know some of the things going on there. So he raises an issue which we will need to come back to between Committee and Report, because it is important and we need to consider it.

I hope that, in addressing the issues and pointing out the various pathways to a visit by the commissioner—or not—I have shown that we are trying to balance the various demands in order to make the commissioner’s visits effective, to maintain national security, and to give no notice where appropriate, while being fair to the bases being visited. I have tried to answer noble Lords’ specific questions, and I hope that those remarks are helpful.

I will just read the formal points into the record, because I think that is helpful. On Amendments 13, 14 and 15 and the commissioner’s power of access to service premises, I thank again the noble Baroness for her characteristically thoughtful consideration of this issue, and indeed I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

As we have just seen, one of the challenges when drafting the Bill was ensuring that the correct balance was struck between the independence and power of the Armed Forces commissioner on one hand, and the power of the Secretary of State, notably to protect the interests of national security and the safety of individuals, on the other.

Although the commissioner has the power to enter service premises and prepare independent reports and recommendations, this is balanced with the Secretary of State’s ability to prevent the exercise of these powers in the interests of national security and personal safety, thus ensuring proper and responsible regard to delicate security issues surrounding defence premises. We believe that the Bill achieves this balance, and that to provide more prescriptive restrictions, such as the ones contained in the proposed amendments, may risk offsetting it.

We must also remember that much of the commissioner’s remit as set out in Clause 4 is solely focused on the general welfare of service persons and their families. The exercise of these powers can only be in pursuit of this issue. It is important that we keep that in mind when considering the role of the Secretary of State in restricting their powers.

In its current form, the Bill grants the commissioner discretion as to how much notice to give service premises ahead of the commissioner’s proposed visit. This could be within seven days, as the noble Baroness suggests, or indeed longer, and we anticipate that that will be the case for the vast majority of the time.

Creating a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to notify the commanding officer of each service premises that the commissioner has given notice of a proposed visit could risk creating a substantial administrative burden on the Secretary of State. It could also prove to be complex, given the multitude of service premises and personnel involved. This additional requirement could frustrate and delay the commissioner, making it harder for them to fulfil one of the most crucial elements of their role: to meet with our Armed Forces and their families in a timely way and to understand the realities of service life. However, we would expect the Secretary of State’s office to inform the relevant commanding officer when they are informed of an impending visit, as I mentioned to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.

Further, in its current form, the Bill deliberately provides that it is up to the judgment of the commissioner as to when giving notice would defeat the object of exercising their power of entry to service premises. Removing this and replacing it with two prescriptive circumstances when the commissioner would be able to conduct no-notice visits risks inadvertently precluding circumstances when no-notice visits would be appropriate. Furthermore, to place a legal obligation on the commissioner to inform the Secretary of State of all instances where and reasons for which they have exercised their discretion not to give notice of planned entry to a service premise would, again, add an administrative burden and could significantly infringe upon their independence.

However, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s concern that it would appear difficult for the Secretary of State to prevent the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of new Section 340IB, proposed by Clause 4(2) of the Bill, on national security grounds should the commissioner decide that a no-notice visit was appropriate. I assure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with partners in defence and across government to understand areas where the Secretary of State—and, where appropriate, the Foreign or Home Secretary—may wish pre-emptively to exercise the restriction power. For example, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, access to certain parts of sites or the ability to take documents from certain terminals may be restricted. Given its sensitive nature, any such list will be a classified document; however, the sites in question and the commissioner would be aware of this in advance.

We will continue to engage with the relevant agencies during implementation. This will be accompanied by a communication and engagement campaign across defence to ensure that sites and personnel are aware of the commissioner and their remit. However, should the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, find it useful, I would welcome meetings with them to discuss this and other matters of national security in relation to the commissioner; that is an open invite to other noble Lords, should they also wish to attend.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness. On these grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, not for the first time, a debate of brevity has actually been one of substance. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their contributions; I am also grateful to the Minister for his customary willingness to engage.

What has emerged is a concern—I detect that there is some sympathy with it—that the Bill has not quite got the balance right. However, I think that it is possible to find a workable solution. As I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it occurred to me that, if we are all trying to be too clever—I simply tried to follow and work with the grain of how the Bill’s draftsmen approached these provisions—he may have a more elegant solution. The simplest thing may be to ask whether the Secretary of State really must be brought into this, because what matters is that national security is not compromised.

I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to meet before Report and would like to avail myself of that opportunity. I would be very surprised if we cannot find some pragmatic way to improve the Bill. It may be that, despite the noble and gallant Lord’s reservations about it, the list could well be a starting point in terms of reassurance that there are certain places that the commissioner will not be getting into.

If we go back to the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that we dislocate at our peril the commanding officer of a base who has overall responsibility in law for the security and safety of that base, that might be a worthwhile starting point, from which you then turn the process around. If the commissioner says, “I’m coming”, the commander of the base says, “Not tomorrow, but you can come on Thursday”, and the commissioner says, “No, I want to come tomorrow”, at that point perhaps the Secretary of State can be brought in. But it seems to me that the critical practical issues are: what is going on in a location at a particular time, and could national security be compromised?

I am absolutely satisfied that there is an intelligent solution to be found. I would welcome the opportunity of a further discussion with the Minister, which I think colleagues who have contributed to the debate would find extremely helpful. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13 in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I will speak briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.

The German armed forces commissioner and her activities—on whose role, to a large degree, this new UK version is based—are covered by a country-wide whistleblowing Act, which was passed, I think, about three years ago. Looking at the example of Jaysley Beck, and trying to disentangle the long and unfortunate history of the way she was treated almost from the time she joined the Army Foundation College, would identify a whole series of points at which the whistle could have been blown in some way, shape or form but, for whatever reason, was not. This is not a case of a single occasion that was missed; there were multiple occasions involving a wide range of people, many of whom were old enough and senior enough to know better, and who, for whatever reason, did not take action.

There are elements of human behaviour and psychology at play, including the way in which an organisation—which has huge pride in its history—reacts when it sees that the way it likes the outside world to believe it behaves, and how it holds its values, is not in fact the case. It is not always straightforward to work out exactly how to deal with that and how to flag up what is going on without being seen to be disloyal and without, in some way, being seen to be disrupting the organisation. Even if you feel that some of the values being demonstrated by the actual behaviour are wrong, they are almost trumped by the other values that one feels are more important, which are probably those that are discussed. The values that have gone wrong are the ones that are not being discussed or flagged up. That seems to be a root cause of why people are not coming forward and not talking.

This is an important area. If the new Armed Forces commissioner is not the office that will look after this, who on earth will be? Who will defend the young girls like Jaysley Beck of the future—and, probably, of today? We need to get this right. I think that we would all welcome detailed discussions between now and Report, probably involving outside organisations that have been talking to some of the people who have suffered and who have not found ways of telling the chain of command or the outside world, in a way that was heard, what was going on. We really need to use the occasion of this Bill to try to get this right.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what an important amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has brought forward. It has enabled the noble Baroness, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, to make the comments they have.

Let us start with the whole point of the commissioner. Obviously, we intend that the commissioner will have the power to investigate all the various issues and matters that noble Lords have brought forward in this Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, “I am not going to give up”. I say to her that she should not give up; nobody should give up. She was forthright on this matter when she was a Minister, as was the noble Earl, Lord Minto—indeed, as is every noble Lord in this Committee. When the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the very senior responsibilities he had in the military, he, like all of us, was trying to tackle this behaviour whereby some are tarnishing the reputation of the whole of our Armed Forces, which utterly unacceptable.

I say to the noble Baroness that, as she will see as I make my remarks, some progress has been made as a result of the policies the previous Government pursued. As noble Lords know, I am a proud Labour politician, but I also admit where progress has previously been made. Is it good enough? Is it satisfactory? Of course not, as we have seen from Gunner Beck’s awful circumstances.

The demands made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, and the noble and gallant Lord—indeed, by every single person in this Committee and beyond—have started to change the culture, which is ultimately what this is about. Will these things stop? I wish I could wave a magic wand and stop every case of bullying, sexism and misogyny, but what I do know is that, if the role of the commissioner is passed as it is now, it will, along with the other reforms that have taken place, help us deliver what we want to do.

I absolutely take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about training new recruits and how we protect and develop them. I know there has been controversy about Harrogate, but it has taken really powerful action to try to deal with that. There have been other instances that we can all refer to. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: this is about trying to generate confidence in people so that they feel they can come forward.

There is also the countercultural point that people sometimes do not come forward not only because they are frightened but because that would somehow break the code—the unwritten rules. It is a nonsense. I used to teach, and you get this in schools, where people will not grass up others, even though they think what they did was wrong, because it somehow breaks a social norm. It is ridiculous and unacceptable, but each and every one of us knows that it is there. The real challenge for institutions, whether schools, offices or the Armed Forces, is how to generate that desire and will to come forward in what are sometimes difficult circumstances, because there is no excuse for that sort of behaviour.

Let me turn to the amendment on whistleblowing. I assure noble Lords that the Ministry of Defence already has a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required. What is required is asking, “How do you get people to use it? How do you get people to come forward? How do you get people to have that confidence?” The noble Baroness, the noble Lord and others who went before them introduced lots of different hotlines, confidential arrangements and changes, but the things that we do not want to happen are still happening. It is about driving things through to bring about that change.

As I pointed out to the noble Baroness, as a consequence of what has happened—noble Lords will know this if they have read the Defence Select Committee’s evidence from last week, and the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, spoke about it in public, so it is out there—21 people have been discharged from Royal Navy service after a whistleblower flagged misconduct and inappropriate behaviour on board submarines. I repeat: the First Sea Lord said that, as a result of whistleblower policies currently in place, 21 people were dismissed from the Submarine Service.

Is that a solution? Is that the end of the problem? Does that mean that nothing terrible is happening or will happen? Of course not, but it shows that we must drive people to have the confidence to use the various procedures and systems that are in place. Otherwise, you can change anything, but, if people do not have the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about, they will not use it and will not come forward. So, as I say, this shows that demonstrable action is being, and will be, taken against those who have transgressed when people are willing to come forward.

The term “whistleblowing” can cover a range of issues much wider than general service welfare matters. The Government’s intention is to focus the commissioner’s remit on service welfare matters. However, I can further reassure your Lordships that nothing in the Bill precludes anyone from raising a general service welfare issue with the commissioner anonymously; nor does it prevent the commissioner acting on that information.

On maintaining anonymity, for all general service welfare matters raised with the commissioner, there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to disclose the identity of any individuals. Indeed, all defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under the Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy. I hope that what I have said about anonymity, whistleblowing and some of the things that are starting to change means that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but, again, I would be happy to discuss any of this with her—indeed, with any noble Lord—because it is so important.

It seems to me that the real challenge for us is around how we can give people, whether they are recruits or people who have been serving for a considerable period of time, the confidence and willingness to come forward and use the measures that are there. Knowing that they can do that both anonymously and in a way in which they will be treated with respect, seems to me the crucial part because, if that does not change, we can change the system but it will not actually deliver the result that we would all want. We are united in our desire to do something about that.

I look forward to the noble Baroness—along with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—continuing to demand better of the system because that is what we all want to achieve and what we all want to happen. What is still happening is unacceptable; we want, and are determined, to do something about that. We think that the commissioner will help in this regard.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, again, this has been a short but very substantial debate. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their contributions—and, indeed, the Minister for his response. What is really encouraging is the unanimity of view that we can keep doing better. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations about the previous Government. From my engagement with him when he was the opposition spokesman on defence, I know how encouraging and supportive he was as we tried to bring forward much-needed change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible. I had thanked the Minister for his kind remarks about the previous Government. It is the case that incredible progress has been made.

As I listened to the contributions, I was struck by two things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, gave a realistic assessment of what we are dealing with on the ground at the moment. I said in my introductory remarks that we have to change culture, attitudes and behaviour, and that we will need more training—all of that—but, as we speak, there is probably a terrified young woman somewhere on an Armed Forces base who has been treated inappropriately and does not know what to do. I do not think that we can provide too many ventilation shafts, conduits or means for that young person, whoever they may be, to know that they can speak to someone and that they will be listened to in confidence. If that person is the Armed Forces commissioner and one of his or her responsibilities in the Bill is whistleblowing, that is fine. It seems to me that we cannot do too much to reassure our Armed Forces personnel.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I just want to reinforce the noble Baroness’s point about speaking in confidence. We need to get this point about anonymity across to people. Something that, I hope, comes across from the noble Baroness’s amendment, my response and the comments of others in the Committee is that people can do this in confidence or anonymously if they wish to come forward. That is a really important point.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. All I shall say in conclusion is that there is an opportunity here to provide another vent, shaft or conduit, which could provide immediate help to someone—we know not where—who, at this moment, is feeling insecure and uncertain as to what to do. If we pass a Bill creating an Armed Forces commissioner and enabling them to deal with whistleblowing, it is a public, tangible representation by the MoD of its willingness and desire to do its level best.

In the circumstances, I would very much appreciate discussing this further with the Minister, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much. I did not have any written notes, so I shall do my best to continue seamlessly.

I think I was commenting on the way in which the public and Parliament know what the commissioner is doing, and there are a couple of elements in this amendment that are particularly relevant. The general point is that, if the commissioner is holding an inquiry on a particular subject, that may indeed take quite a significant period of time. There are issues that are being resolved that do not necessarily deserve a stand-alone report on a particular subject—but do we have a sense of what issues are being addressed and how the commissioner is working? In particular, we can look at proposed new Section 340OA(1)(c) in this amendment, on

“the resources used by the Commissioner in fulfilling its functions, and any further resources required”.

It is important that Parliament and the public have a sense that the commissioner has a vehicle by which they can say, “X number of extra issues have been raised with me, but I only have the resources to do this number of things”.

So it is useful at this stage perhaps to regard this as a probing amendment. I am very interested in whether the Minister can comment on Clause 4(3) on page 5, which I referred to. It talks about an investigation and a report, but how are we going to know what the commissioner is doing in a general sense and get a general picture of their work? How do Parliament and the public know that? I think that is what this amendment seeks to address.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for introducing these amendments. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, here and note her apologies but also her sterling efforts to get here despite the broken rail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for stepping in.

The noble Earl is right to point out the challenges on recruitment and retention, and the Government are taking a number of steps to try to deal with those outside the remit of the Bill. We can go through all those, on pay, how the childcare arrangements have changed and the change to the recruiting system—there will be a new system from 2027 that will bring the three services together. All those sorts of changes are trying to improve the recruitment process. On the retention aspects of it, we hope and expect that the general welfare investigations and work that the commissioner does may help to address some of the other points that the noble Earl made with respect to their impact.

But I take the point from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup: of course the commissioner can look at recruitment and retention if she or he believes them to be of a general welfare concern. Whether they do or not is an open debate, but we are taking other measures outside this Bill to deal with that issue, and we hope that we can address that in the way we want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, to return to my remarks, I had thanked the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for their contributions to the debate. I welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on her arrival and congratulated her on her perseverance. I was just in the process of making a couple of remarks about the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made in speaking to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

I will deal with this further in my formal remarks, but the most important thing I can say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, is: look closely at Clause 4(4), which deals with the annual report to which the amendment specifically refers. Public awareness of that, its presentation before Parliament and so on are important, but thematic reports are allowed or contained within the legislation under Clause 4(3), and these again would be laid before Parliament. It is important for us to record that the Bill provides not only for annual reports—they speak for themselves, and they can contain all sorts of recommendations and refer to the thematic reports that the commissioner may or may not have made during the year—but specifically for a number of thematic reports on whatever they choose. It is important to recognise those two different avenues by which various information can be conveyed to Parliament about the commissioner’s work, which is why I referred to that.

I thank the noble Baronesses for their amendments and for highlighting the importance of improving retention in the Armed Forces. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for his helpful introduction.

As I mentioned previously, we know that forces personnel have cited the impact of service life on their families and personal life as the leading factor influencing their decision to leave the service. That is the very reason we have brought forward this Bill: if, by shining a light on welfare matters that affect the quality of service life, we can get after those matters, it should follow that fewer of our personnel will feel compelled to leave for those reasons.

As I have said before, there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to preclude the commissioner from dedicating one or more thematic investigations, and therefore reports, to retention, if they consider it to be a general service welfare matter. In addition, if retention is relevant to their findings or recommendations for another investigation that they have carried out, there is also nothing to preclude the commissioner from including it in that report as well. However, it is vital to ensure the independence of the commissioner and it should be for them to exercise their discretion and autonomy in deciding on the exact content of their thematic reports.

I turn to Amendment 18, regarding the commissioner’s annual report. The Government’s intention with the establishment of the Armed Forces commissioner role is to increase transparency and accountability. The annual report will be an independent report to Parliament on the state of welfare in the forces and what we must or should do to improve our offer to those who serve.

The existing legislation for the Service Complaints Ombudsman sets out their functions and requirements. This includes the production of an annual report, which must contain anything that the current ombudsman thinks appropriate to the exercise of their functions for that year. Clause 2 of the Bill transfers the functions of the ombudsman to the commissioner and Clause 4(4), as I already mentioned, makes the necessary tweaks to their existing annual reporting requirements to ensure that they also include the commissioner’s new functions under the Bill. The commissioner therefore still has to produce an annual report, and it must be laid before Parliament.

In the other place, the Secretary of State stated his intention that a debate on that report becomes a regular part of the parliamentary calendar each year. I hope that this promise to make the annual report a key part of parliamentary business is one of the ways of demonstrating how seriously both the Secretary of State and I already take the findings of the commissioner.

The commissioner will be in a unique and unprecedented position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our Armed Forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and the public a range of issues faced by service personnel. To overly define what should be in the scope of the annual report may undermine their independence.

The Secretary of State will remove any material in a report that they consider is against the interests of national security or that might jeopardise someone’s personal safety. There will be stringent safeguards as part of this review process to ensure that the Secretary of State’s remit for redactions is limited to these categories. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have only 30 sitting days from receipt to lay thematic reports before Parliament. A 30-day limit for an annual report that could be hundreds of pages long may be challenging, if we are to provide the appropriate level of national security and personal safety checks necessary in this context. The report, however, will be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable.

By convention, it is common practice for the Government to respond to the recommendations of independent commissioners or ombudsmen, but I note the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to see this more clearly spelled out in legislation. With regards to a response being required within three calendar months, I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that the Government respond in a timely manner; however, this may prove to be an unrealistic timeframe. The recommendations would be unknown and likely to require a substantive amount of consideration by the department. The three-month deadline is likely to lead only to a very high-level response, rather than to the more considered response that we would like.

I hope this provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl. On these grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Harlech for tabling Amendments 21A and 21B, which seek to ensure that the commissioner prioritises the interests of the reserves appropriately. My noble friend has brought some excellent expertise to this issue as a serving reserve officer himself. The importance of the reserves within the overall Armed Forces is undeniable; their critical role is both admired and valued by all.

As the Minister will no doubt tell us, reserves will have recourse to the commissioner because they are subject to service law when in training and on active duty. That said, my noble friend is seeking to make a broader point that the commissioner should consider the interests and experiences of the reserves equally to those of regular personnel. We support him in his desire to ensure that our reserve units are prioritised appropriately.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for tabling these amendments, which allow us to discuss the issue of reserves. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, yes, reserves are covered and are within scope of the Bill when they are subject to service law. I have made that point on a number of occasions, but I say it again so that we are absolutely clear of the fact and have no misunderstanding.

I need to declare an interest as, like the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, my son-in-law is an active reservist. I have to be careful about that because, as noble Lords can imagine, he is not without an opinion about certain things—nor indeed is the rest of the family—so I put that on the record. He was active in Iraq. My noble friend pointed out the service of reservists in these campaigns, and my son-in-law was one of them. We all know people who are, were or will be reserves.

The Bill does not cover cadets, as the noble Baroness pointed out, although they are of course a major policy issue, as well as a major source of pride for us all. We hope that they both develop and expand. I will respond to a few of the points made before I make my formal reply.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

Having read the Bill, I know that the Minister is right: the reservists are covered while they are under service law. But what about individuals who are not on active service but who, for example, are affected by mental health problems or injuries they have sustained, and find it difficult to get redress for those things, which are a result of their service? How would that be covered? Would the commissioner be able to look at those individuals, who might not be active at the time but are still reservists? I can give examples of individuals like that who have sat at home for long periods of time, who are not active but were ignored by the system.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The answer to that is yes. I say to my noble friend, as I would to any noble Lord, that if there are instances of anything like that, he should bring them to my attention. I cannot always promise an answer, but I will always ensure that things are looked into. If my noble friend has something he wants me to look at, of course I will do so.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I am sorry to press the point. My noble friend the Minister said, “Yes”, but can he clarify that? This is important. The Bill says that they are covered by service law. If an individual, for example, has been on operations, has mental health problems, and has been detached from his unit for a while and is trying to get help, he is not technically covered by service law in those situations. Would he or she still be able to go to the commissioner and say, “Wait, we are not getting treatment or support in the way that we deserve”?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that, in that situation, the issue arose as a consequence of service law. If that is wrong, I will clarify the position in a letter, and I will copy in all noble Lords in the Committee. My understanding is that, because the issue arose when they were subject to service law, the commissioner could therefore still look at it.

It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his own service. He mentioned Mr Davey, whom I acknowledge as well. There will be many other people whom we all know and who deserve congratulations and respect for their service. I ask the noble Lord to pass on the thanks of all noble Lords in this Committee to his unit, which, as he pointed out, has done particularly well. I also thank him for his speech and the various points he made in it, which were very good. The importance of what he said is not only shown in the answers he receives; it is in the fact that people will have heard his comments and the opinions he expressed. That also influences opinion in a way that is not always obvious, so he should take great credit for that. It is self-evident that we must consider the needs of reservists, but that is not always said as loudly and clearly as it should be, so the noble Lord taking the opportunity to do so when speaking to his amendments is extremely important.

My noble friend Lord Beamish outlined, in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, the importance of reservists and the even greater role that, potentially, they may be asked to play in future. We will see what happens with that. My noble friend pointing out the importance of reservists is extremely welcome.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, for the point he made about our dialogue and interaction on reservists and when they would be subject to service law. On the engagement point and the comments that he read out, we are actively considering how we would do that. I imagine that that would be through surveys and visits and by talking to individual reservists and their units about their needs, requirements and concerns. It is not necessarily for me to lay out to the commissioner exactly how to do that, but that is how I would expect a commissioner to work to ensure that the views and opinions of reservists were gleaned.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out the importance of veterans, the centrality of their commitment and their importance to the regulars, with whom they often train and serve side by side. He will know of that importance better than most of us, from his own military background and experience. He, too, was right to point out the importance of reservists.

I have already answered the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on whether reservists are included in the scope of the Bill.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on the Armed Forces commissioner’s consideration of and consultation with reserves. As I said, our Armed Forces reserves play a vital role in supporting our national security, and we recognise their dedication and value their work and well-being, showing them the same high regard as our regular service personnel. The contribution, skills and commitment of our reserves are essential to our operational strength, and I believe that every Member of the Committee would agree with that. As I said before, I hope that the noble Lord can pass that on to his friends and colleagues.

It is for that reason that reserves are within the scope of the new commissioner. As with regular members of the Armed Forces, members of the reserves will be able to contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service, and have those issues considered. That was the point I made to my noble friend Lord Beamish: they can contact the commissioner at any point about general service welfare matters that have arisen in connection with their service. That goes to the point that my noble friend rightly raised.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

23: Schedule 2, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we see Amendment 23 as a minor and technical amendment, in that it makes provision that is consequential to Clause 3. The purpose of Clause 3 is to ensure that the admissibility decisions—decisions about whether a service complaint is admissible and can be progressed in the first instance—can be made by civilians as well as officers. Clause 3 does this by amending Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than it having to take up officers’ time in every case. We intend that decisions will be made by suitably qualified and trained civil servants. Given that these decisions are procedural in nature, this feels appropriate and is the only minor amendment that we have made to the service complaints system in the Bill.

However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate officer in the single services. The commissioner will absorb these functions from the ombudsman and will therefore be able to refer complaints into the system as well. In drafting the Bill, it was an oversight that we did not include this necessary consequential amendment as a result of Clause 3 to ensure that this change was reflected consistently across the legislation.

I say to the noble Baroness and others that the provision was already considered in Clause 3 during the Bill’s passage, and it does not exclude the military. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will take it from the Minister that this is a technical change that is necessary as a consequential. I will not raise further questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I shall make a couple of points before getting started. The principle of this was accepted when the Committee accepted Clause 3. This change or clarification makes this a technical amendment to make sure that the legislation is consistent with a clause that we have already passed. That is why we talk about it being a technical amendment. It is something that is often done in government legislation, whereby an in-principle change is made but sometimes, when it is fully considered, a drafting error appears or it becomes apparent that there was another piece of legislation that should have been referred to—and this is what was found with respect to this issue.

Amendment 23 was brought forward not to change the principle or re-establish any new thoughts but simply to ensure that there is legislative consistency across government with respect to Clause 3, which the Committee had already passed. That was why we proposed it as a minor and technical amendment. I would not have brought forward something to this Committee that was a substantial policy change. The noble Baroness is quite right that that should be discussed in the main Chamber, and I absolutely accept that.

Service complaints are never made directly to the commissioner; first, they have to go through the service complaints procedure. The Service Complaints Ombudsman function has been taken on board by the Armed Forces commissioner, but they will not address service complaints; in fact, if there is a service complaint, they will send them back for an admissibility decision. So the service complaints procedure is not impacted in that sense; the Service Complaints Ombudsman function is impacted on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. This amendment concerns an area of technical expertise that is way beyond my ken—although, when I was a Minister, Gibraltar was raised on numerous occasions in relation to legislation. I am not an expert, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response to what seemed to be very significant comments from the noble Lord.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Beamish for his outstanding realisation that he was moving the amendment and for swiftly jumping to his feet to put forward some very important points.

Given that this matter is legal and technical, I shall read out the legal points, because some very important points are contained within them. The relevant piece that we are looking at is the extent points in Clause 6; that is what we are referring to. Although it is very technical and legal, is quite an important part of the Bill.

Amendment 24 relates to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for tabling it and my noble friend Lord Beamish for introducing it. It seeks to include Gibraltar alongside the other British Overseas Territories in the permissive extent clause of the Bill. While I understand that the noble Lord may be concerned about the exclusion of Gibraltar, I shall give him some reassurance.

My colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar towards the end of last year. He was very welcoming of the Bill and confirmed that he is content to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on Armed Forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters.

I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who has responsibility for the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for his recent letter to the MoD on these matters, in which he praised the approach of the department and expressed a desire to promote this across government.

I reassure the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Beamish that although the Bill will not extend to Gibraltar, it will still apply to UK service persons subject to service law, and their families, wherever they are in the world. Members of a British Overseas Territories force, including the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, are subject to service law when undertaking any duty or training with UK Armed Forces. That also applies to other overseas territories, as my noble friend mentioned, provided they are subject to service law. It will also apply to UK Armed Forces premises worldwide, provided they fall within the required parameters set out in the Bill. I hope that that is of some reassurance to my noble friend, and I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only thing I will add about Gibraltar is that things move very slowly. Having been the MoD Minister responsible for Gibraltar, I know that things do not move quickly. The Armed Forces Act 2011 was not signed into Gibraltar law until 2018. If the chief Minister has given a commitment that this will take less time than it took to enact the Armed Forces Act 2011, then, with that and my noble friend’s explanation, it has been worth having this debate. We have had it for every single Armed Forces Bill—certainly that I have been involved in. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, who owes me a large drink for moving his amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.