Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Lord Stirrup Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that I support this Bill and that I am very grateful to the Minister for the consultations that he has already held regarding the background to and purpose of the legislation. At this point, I have just a few concerns on which I should welcome his further clarification.

The first concern is with regard to an issue which he himself has raised: the extent to which the Bill’s proposals will lead to real change for our Armed Forces. Take accommodation as an example. I should be very surprised if a commissioner did not see the need to look into this aspect of service life. Numerous attitude surveys have made clear over a number of years how the poor standard of housing, particularly for single people, has affected morale and, in turn, retention. I have seen for myself some of the failings in this area and the desperate measures to which some local commanders have been driven.

Having said as much, it is patently clear that we do not need an Armed Forces commissioner to tell us about the problem. But despite us being all too aware of the issue, the problem remains. It is, of course, essentially a matter of funding. If a future commissioner were to produce a report on this matter and it had as little effect on the ground as we have seen so far, people might begin to wonder what the point was. If this legislation is to be successful, it is essential that the circle be closed—that identification leads to rectification. I know the Minister shares this view, but I wonder how the MoD intends to give effect to his good intentions. Perhaps he can enlighten us—if not today then as the Bill continues its passage through the House.

The second point is the method by which people will engage with the commissioner. We have had a Service Complaints Ombudsman for some time, but one of the key drivers of the Bill has been the ombudsman’s criticism of the complaints procedure. This is part substance and part perception. I do not believe that the chain of command is quite as protectionist as some claim. I accept that there might be a closing of the ranks in a few cases, but commanders are in general anxious to ensure the welfare of their people. There is, however, a sense that those same commanders sometimes act as judges in their own causes. This gives rise to a perception of unfairness, and it can make subordinates feel that complaining will damage their career prospects, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, observed.

These are good reasons for introducing a system that has a much greater degree of independence, but people will need to be convinced that the degree of independence is sufficient to protect them from what they might see as the risks of complaining. I know that some have suggested that the commissioner’s independence would be compromised from the outset, since he or she would be appointed by, dismissible by and report to the Secretary of State. I do not share that view, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say what thought is being given to the way complainants will gain entry to the system. In the other place, the Minister responding for the Government said that it would be for the commissioner to decide how people access them. That seems rather vague. Surely some consideration has been given to an issue that will be central to the success of the proposed arrangements.

My final point is on the potentially vexed issue of access. As we have heard, the Bill gives the commissioner power to view premises, observe activities, inspect and copy documents, inspect equipment, take measurements and photographs, and so on. These are very wide-ranging powers. The Bill goes on to say that, in exercising them, the commissioner should give notice to the Secretary of State, but only within such a period as the commissioner deems reasonable and not if they consider that the giving of such notice would defeat the purpose of the investigation. As the Minister noted, the Bill does indeed say:

“The Secretary of State may prevent or restrict the Commissioner’s exercise”


of their powers

“in the interests of national security”,

but the Secretary of State will not always have the necessary details—not in time, at any rate—to exercise such a veto effectively. Within the military, many premises and documents are, and much equipment is, highly classified, and access to them is very limited, even among currently serving personnel. It is inconceivable that a commissioner should be able to override such restrictions.

When I was a station commander, a very long time ago, the Secretary of State would not have had a clue which parts of my command were sensitive and which were not. What would have happened had a commissioner descended on me at short notice and then demanded access to such an area? As proposed, I would have had no power to deny them. I realise that this will not be an issue in very many cases—including the example of accommodation that I cited earlier—but thematic issues may well be raised to the commissioner that concern working environments, and here security may well become a serious concern.

I understand the need to prevent people using security as a shield against investigation. On the other hand, security is one of the fundamental principles of war, and we neglect it at our peril. Some might argue that we could leave this up to the good sense of the commissioner. I do not suggest for one moment that the commissioner would lack good sense, but I simply cannot accept that such an issue can be left to chance. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the Bill itself needs to address this more effectively.

Let me stress that I make these comments with the intent of improving, rather than undermining, the very welcome Bill, which has my strong support, and I know that the Minister will view them in that light. I look forward to working with him on these issues as the legislation goes forward.