Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, both the amendments in this group are in my name, and Amendment 10 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 2 relates to a matter of particular concern to my honourable friend in the other place: that we need to be very mindful of those who are going through the recruitment process. The legislation is obviously about those subject to service law, but one of the concerns is that, as people go through the recruitment process, they are potentially vulnerable. Clearly, that would not apply to somebody just walking into an Army recruitment office, but if somebody has got to the point of applying, going through the medical process and then going through various assessments to see whether they are suitable to be recruited—apparently there is sometimes a requirement to stay overnight, for example—there is a real concern that we need to make sure that they are not put in any difficulty, particularly when it comes to young people.

If there is no Service Complaints Commissioner because the role is being taken over by the Armed Forces commissioner, will it be possible for those going through the recruitment process to be part of that? I know that the Minister is not minded to accept this amendment, but it would be helpful if he would at least explain to the Grand Committee how the interests of those going through the recruitment process, particularly the very young, will be maintained and if he would confirm that safeguarding will be in place.

Amendment 10 is to some extent related to the draft regulations that have just appeared. At Second Reading the Minister said that he would make sure that the draft regulations would be out in good time before Grand Committee—I think he may have said that it would be not just half an hour before. They arrived a good two hours before Grand Committee, so we are probably winning. The draft regulations talk about deceased service personnel’s family, so that bit of our amendment has already been covered, but I have two questions, one of which is linked to the amendment as initially tabled, which is about kinship carers and whether the language used in the draft regulations is intended to cover that or whether we still need to think about a more specific amendment on kinship carers coming back on Report.

At the moment, the various clauses in the draft regulations talk about “relevant family members”, including those for whom someone

“has assumed regular and substantial caring responsibilities”,

but there is very little definition of what is meant by that. It may be that there is other, not necessarily Armed Forces legislation, where there are very clear definitions, but it would be helpful for Grand Committee to understand how His Majesty’s Government understand that.

As the draft regulations happen to be in front of us, I wonder whether this is the right place to ask the Minister my second question relating to them, regarding Regulation 2(3)(b) about

“a former spouse or civil partner or a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”.

I am just wondering how far the remit of “relevant family members” is intended to extend. If we are talking about someone at the time of a bereavement, it is usually clear who is the spouse or civil partner. Where we are dealing with people who have previously held those roles, is it anyone who has previously been in the role of something similar to a spouse or civil partner? How do His Majesty’s Government intend to define that? Is the Armed Forces commissioner supposed to deal with all those relationships, or will we be looking at a narrower definition? I beg to move.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I will speak against Amendment 2. I declare my interest as a member of the Army Board.

I understand the intent, but my objection to Amendment 2 is based on practicality. The recruitment process has changed dramatically in recent years. Indeed, you can start your recruitment process not by going into an Army recruitment centre but simply by going online and clicking a button. Last year alone, we had over 100,000 applicants to the Regular Army and over 30,000 applicants to the Army Reserve. That was just for a single service, so I think it is fair to say that probably in excess of 200,000 people will have applied to join the Armed Forces over the past year. If we were to allow these people to access this system, I think the system would simply be overwhelmed and goodness knows what the cost would be.

The principle is that those who are subject to service law are subject to the Bill, and service law does not kick in until the point of attestation, when you actually join the Army. I was privileged to be in Nepal only three weeks ago to witness our next 372 Gurkhas being attested into the British Army. I understand the sentiment, but, with the greatest of respect, I think it is simply impractical. We would open the aperture of the system to so many people that we would run the risk of the system simply not working because it would be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and we are probably all delighted to hear that there were so many applications for the Army last year, given that recruitment has been an issue. Could the noble Lord continue with some of that exposition? Obviously, it is possible to apply by going online and clicking a button and, clearly, the applicant should not have recourse to the Armed Forces commissioner at that stage. But at the stage where somebody is going through a medical or being assessed, could there be concerns that we need to think about, even if that is not through the Armed Forces commissioner?

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point, which is why I said at the start of my remarks that I understood the intent behind what she is trying to achieve. Without getting distracted, the challenge that we face at the moment is a crisis not of recruitment but of conversion. One of our biggest challenges is that we have a conversion rate—forgive me if this figure is not quite right—of about 13 or 14 to one in the Army and about 20 to one in the Army Reserve. The challenge is in the process of recruitment and the time that it takes. I am straying beyond my role here today, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the Armed Forces are seeking to address that. Those who are frustrated in that process probably should have the ability to have redress, but I am not sure that this process is the right one.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I too am persuaded that Amendment 2 is not necessary, but, with an eye to what one might consider bringing forward on Report, could I take the opportunity to ask the Minister to reflect a little more widely than simply the recruitment process and go into some detail on recruit training? Recruit training will be covered by the Armed Forces commissioner, but it is as a blanket coverage just like everything else.

But we are only too well aware of the serious concerns that exist about the abuse of recruits undergoing training. This is a particularly serious problem that, in my view, needs to be looked at outwith the general subject of the treatment of people in the Armed Forces. Why do I say that? Recruit training is and must be a tough and stressful endeavour. It has to turn civilians into effective members of a military organisation. It has to forge new bonds of loyalty and duty, and that will never be an easy or gentle process. But, simply because of that, recruit training becomes a particularly potentially dangerous area, because recruits are particularly vulnerable. Anyone in charge of recruits who steps over the bounds can cause serious harm.

The abuse of recruits is not just wholly wrong legally and morally; it is also damaging to the image of the Armed Forces more widely, and indeed it could be damaging to recruiting. So it seems to me that this area deserves some particular and special attention. The Minister might like to reflect on whether something should be included in the Bill, or in the regulations that flow from it, that pays particular attention to this.

It is not, of course, because commanders do not care; they do care. We have had the very recent example of the Chief of the General Staff expressing his shame at some of the some of the recent cases. But we have seen these cases year after year, stretching back as far as any of us can remember. The care, concern and statements of commanders have not changed things. As the Minister will be aware from discussions we had at Second Reading, the critical thing in the Bill is what it will do to change things on the ground. Recruit training, it seems to me, is an area that deserves particular consideration. I wonder whether he might reflect on that and perhaps have some further discussions before we get to Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I sense that we are in danger of confusing the recruitment process and recruits. The recruitment process is the process through which you apply to join the Armed Forces. That ends at the point of attestation, when you join the Armed Forces. You then become a recruit in training. It is unfortunate that the two words are similar; we run the risk of not understanding that the point at which service law applies is attestation.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

On a broader point, because the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, has raised this with me with respect to the reserves, there is a need to publicise the work of the commissioner and to make people confident in being able to contact the commissioner, going to the commissioner with whatever their concerns are, and for the commissioner to hear that, even if the commissioner says, “That’s an individual complaint; you need to go to the service complaints system”. But if enough of those come, then they can see that there is a general welfare issue that is occurring. We are going to reflect on how we ensure that we publicise the work of the commissioner. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made the suggestion that that may mean that, in a particular circumstance with respect to recruit training, we may need to consider how we do that. But it may be that there are other circumstances for other groups or categories—however you want to define them.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3, not because I agree with it but because I agree very strongly with it. When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill, I remember him saying—quite rightly—that one of the important aspects of this Bill is that it puts this commissioner on a statutory footing. He was referring to the fact that he wanted this new post to have the weight of statute behind her or him. I simply support Amendment 3—if I refer to it again, I shall say “very, very strongly”—because it would give this post the authority of Parliament, in addition to being in statute, which would be a very good thing.

I am interested in everything said by people who know far more than I do about the German system but, clearly, that is not particularly appropriate to a British political setting. Amendment 3, however, is absolutely perfectly suited to our political system. I know that, sadly, Governments do not tend to like amendments such as Amendment 3. If I were on the other side of the Room, I dare say my noble friend might have been arguing for Amendment 3. I understand that, in his current ministerial position, he may be guided by the officials behind him and say, “Well, it is too complicated”, but it is not complicated at all. It is a question of whether Parliament should be involved, which it should be. This is a major new post that we are creating. The process of confirming the appointment of whoever is put forward is something that Parliament should do. Incidentally, it is not just because Amendment 3 applies to this particular Bill; I would support Amendment 3 in every piece of legislation where this type of question arises.

That is all I have to say on this matter. I do hope that, when he replies, my noble friend the Minister will at least acknowledge the, I would say, widespread feeling that Parliament must be involved in the appointment of this person; and convey it internally to his colleagues in the Government who would be resistant to an amendment of this kind. When it comes to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament, I try always to be on the side of Parliament.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in broad support of Amendments 3 and 4. Anything that strengthens the relationship between the Armed Forces and Parliament must be a good thing. I was taken by the commentary in the House of Commons around the similarities with the German system, although I was struck that, in reality, there do not seem to be many hooks in the Bill that reflect that, which is why I think we should look carefully at how we can reflect that.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

I will say very briefly that I support Amendment 3, but I have some reservations about Amendment 4, mainly because of its length and its attempt to dot a lot of “i”s and cross a lot of “t”s. At the back of my mind all the time when we are discussing this Bill is that the Armed Forces Act is more than 500 pages long, and this will add to that. It becomes a nonsense to have an Act of Parliament of such complexity and such an attempt to deal with every conceivable possibility affecting the Armed Forces. It arises, of course, because the three single-service Acts were pulled together in 2006. It has produced a monstrosity, so where we can avoid adding detail to the Armed Forces Act by this Bill, we should jolly well try to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. The Government set great store by the independence of the commissioner. We all agree that that is vital, yet this amendment is necessary because the possibility is left open that it will not be properly funded. I find that remarkable. As my noble friend said in moving his amendment, this would detract from the independence of the commissioner.

I do not see why the Government should be allowed to say that they are fully committed to this new post and to giving it the resources that it needs—this was on the fact sheet, which I also picked up; I should have brought it with me—while, at the same time, they will not guarantee this funding in the Bill, which will become an Act. That is all I have to say. I am afraid that I cannot quite imagine what my noble friend the Minister will say in response because this is so clearly something that will set in stone the importance of the work and independence of the commissioner.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I will be equally brief. I come at this from a slightly different angle. I confess that I equally support the principle that, whatever happens, this post must be funded; indeed, I asked some Parliamentary Questions about this before commencement. An Answer to a Question on 14 February with the reference number HL4758 said that, in 2023, the post of the ombudsman cost £1.8 million. It is anticipated that, after the changes, the annual cost will increase to between £4.5 million and £5.5 million—a tripling of the cost. Those costs are modest and, I think, reasonable, although I am concerned about inflation—as in, inflation of the number of complaints and costs. There will be a tripling in the cost of this post as a direct result of the Bill.

As I have mentioned before, the role of the ombudsman is just the tip of the iceberg. The unseen cost of service complaints at the bottom of the iceberg within the single services—we have already had an amendment suggesting that we would potentially increase eligibility, through the recruitment process, by at least 100,000—is enormous. There are no official figures on costs—well, there are such figures, but they are not in the public domain and I am certainly not going to put them there; the Minister may or may not wish to put them in the public domain in due course—but they are enormous. I am quite confident in saying that, over a 10-year period, they will exceed £100 million. That is a lot of money.

There is competition in defence for money. All I am saying at this point is that we need to find a balance here. It is absolutely right that this system is in place, that our service personnel have the ability to go through this process, and that it is fair and properly funded, but I put a plea in: at a time when there is enormous pressure on defence, we must find that balance when it comes to scarce resource.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

If this role works and changes the culture in the Armed Forces, should that not drive down the number of complaints coming forward? That is a benchmark for what it is going to do. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that the way in which different services deal with complaints is, frankly, ridiculous. If it were a business, it would have gone out of business a long time ago with the length of time it takes. It is not good for the victim or the service either.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord. All I am trying to do is to put in a dose of reality as to just how expensive this process could be if we are not careful. There is enormous value in it, but can we please be mindful of balance of investment and of finding the right, efficient process that delivers value for money for our service personnel?

--- 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.