Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I offer my congratulations to Emily and James, and I look forward very much to the engagement party next month—it will be fun. Equally, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, on her excellent maiden speech. I have to say that I was given exactly the same advice about drinking Guinness when I joined the Army—other drinks are available, and we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, in due course.

I start by declaring my interest as a humble reservist and head of the Army Reserve—I have been a proud reservist now for some 37 years now. Indeed, my early career was under the then Group Captain Stirrup at RAF Marham, filling holes in his runways. He is not here to hear that, but I certainly remember him, though he will not remember me.

I shall make three brief points, which I will expand on later. The first is that while the service complaints system has had a troubled birth, it has evolved into a pretty good system. As we lift and shift it into this new Bill, I hope that we resist tinkering with it and, perhaps, moving two steps backwards. Let us be very careful about that.

Secondly, I really welcome the aspects relating to the family. I am a firm believer that we recruit the soldier but we retain the family. I am slightly concerned that we raise expectations as to what the commissioner will be able to deliver. I do not want to overpromise and then underdeliver; at the end of the day, it is about money, and I fear not that we may lead people down the garden path but that, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, says, we do not have the money to correct the problems.

My third point is simply around a technical amendment when it comes to the application of the Bill to Gibraltar, or not. We have made that mistake in the past with a previous Armed Forces Bill, and if I have time I will expand on that.

What has not been described fully is that, while the ombudsman has an important role in the service complaints system, the majority of the work is done by the single services themselves—and an awful lot of work goes on. There are hundreds of complaints each year, and that takes an awful lot of staff time. I will speak predominantly about the Army, because it is the service I know, and it has had to recruit 22 extra posts in recent years just to deal with this work, and very few cases actually get to the ombudsman. I worked closely with one of the earlier ombudsmen, Nicola Williams, when I was Veterans Minister, and I know that we have made progress. However, we judge the success of the system through three tests: is it efficient, is it effective, and is it fair?

The Army has done a lot of work in the last two years. Is it efficient? On the target of 90% of service complaints being dealt with within 24 weeks, for years we were stagnating at around 44%. When the next results come out, we will be up to 70%, so progress is being made. However, I emphasise how much work this takes to deliver. Is it effective? Well, how do you judge effectiveness? While 45% of career management complaints have been upheld, 40% of bullying, harassment and discrimination complaints have been upheld— I will come back to that—and 54% of pay and pension complaints have been upheld. They are being upheld, so it looks like the system is becoming more effective.

I want to highlight the case of Major Milroy, an Army reservist who won an employment tribunal over differential pay compared with his regular counterparts and not being able to access a pension until 2015 when the rules changed in 2005. My concern is not the case itself, because the MoD is seeking to repeal it, but that over 200 reservists felt obliged to make a service complaint on the back of that because they were concerned that if they did not, they would be timed out. It goes to the heart of sometimes poor communication from the Ministry of Defence about what is required and what is not.

Finally, is the process fair? The number of appeals is down, which implies that there is greater fairness, but we still have concerns over bullying, harassment and discrimination. Data suggests that a higher proportion of complaints come from minority groups and women. Following the Wigston review in 2019, with 36 recommendations and, as the Minister highlighted, the tragic case of Gunner Beck in 2021, with the coroner’s report just two weeks ago, clearly much more work needs to be done.

One of the concerns, as the HCDC report in 2021 on women in the forces said, is a lack of trust in the process—89% of women did not feel that they could make a service complaint, because it would not be taken seriously. I am pleased that some progress has been made. This is a significant change. Now, complaints within the Army do not go through the chain of command and the commanding officer—often, people did not want to complain to their commanding officer—and 80% of them go to the Army service complaints secretariat. That is a much better process, where people do not feel constrained by their chain of command. However, as ever, there is an unintended consequence—speedy resolution is now not as easy as it was, and in some cases that is exactly what people want. Also, the number of complaints is up, but partly because we have the My Complaint app and better publicity. That complaints are going up is not necessarily because the situation is worse but because people understand the system and are using it, so that is probably a good thing.

I am running out of time. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I want to say a word about accommodation. We know that accommodation is poor. We are prioritising service accommodation over training estate or the Army Reserve, but I worry that we will now have lots of complaints about accommodation which we already know about. Unless we are prepared to commit the money to sort it out, we will be raising expectations. It may be a radical thought, but the Bill’s provisions are due to come in in 2026 and the increase in defence spending in 2027. I do wonder whether we should delay for a year to make sure that we can meet expectations.

--- 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.