Ukraine

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

No matter which side of the Chamber he is sitting on, the right hon. Gentleman has a long history of supporting deterrence—whether nuclear or short of that threshold—and he makes the same point again. The US Secretary of Defence made it clear in his remarks to the contact group that deterrence is important around the world, so I think there is agreement there.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of the new £150 million package of military firepower for Ukraine., including drones, tanks and air defence systems. How will that boost Ukrainian resilience and the UK defence sector?

[Maria Eagle]

It does both. There is only one way in which we can provide the Ukrainians with increasing amounts of munitions and drones, which are developing and changing rapidly, and that is by boosting the strength of our defence industries. That has the additional importance of enabling us to boost our capacity to deter any potential aggression, so in that sense we can do both, and we are doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am familiar with the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has raised similar concerns. If the right hon. Lady writes to me about that, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it further.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Lord Robertson is conducting the externally led strategic defence review based on the terms of reference that were agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson will publish it in the spring. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to it as much as I am.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Under the last Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to get to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system that we inherited in defence?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that we inherited a broken defence procurement system; I think broken was the word that the shadow defence procurement Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), used when he was on the Defence Committee. It must make for awkward team meetings, given that the man responsible for the broken procurement system, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is sitting in those meetings as his boss. We have set out clearly that, as part of our defence reform work, we will create a new national armaments director. The new defence industrial strategy will be published in due course, which will set out how we will spend more with British companies, supporting not just the primes but small and medium-sized enterprises in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

However, it was not only residency rights on which the Gurkhas faced discrimination. They faced inadequate support after leaving active service, receiving less pay than their British counterparts for the same jobs, and many were deprived of fair pensions. Even today, veterans who served before 1997 continue to struggle for equal recognition and treatment. It is my firm belief that amendment 2—especially the call for the Armed Forces Commissioner to produce annual reports on the challenges faced by specific groups and to establish mechanisms for community engagement—will help ensure that no group ever again has to suffer injustice like the Gurkhas did. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this vital amendment.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be.

There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide.

As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks.

I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is good to see the Armed Forces Commissioner put on a statutory basis, and to see the functions set out and see how the staff, though perhaps not directly recruited, can be provided for the commissioner. All that is good, but it causes me to ask why, if we are making that provision for the serving members of our armed forces, are we not making a parallel statutory provision for our veterans? Why is it right to have a statutory basis for the Armed Forces Commissioner, but not for the various veterans commissioners? Surely, if it is right for serving members, it must equally be right to have a statutory basis setting out the functions and ensuring staff provision for the veterans commissioners. I take the case of the part of the United Kingdom that I know best: in Northern Ireland, we have a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner for two days a week, effectively, with two staff seconded from the Northern Ireland Office, who is charged with looking after all the interests of the very many thousands of veterans that we unsurprisingly have in Northern Ireland.

I ask again, if it is right to have a commissioner on a statutory basis for serving soldiers, why is that not the case for veterans? It would be not only a significant step forward in itself, but a significant nod to how we value our veterans community if we were to give them equality of treatment on this issue. I think that is very important. Without the role being on a statutory basis, a part-time, term-appointed veterans commissioner with seconded staff has his hands tied behind his back, frankly.

In Northern Ireland, because this Government are going to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, we are moving back into a phase where we may see many veterans from incidents 50 years ago dragged through our courts. We have a veterans commissioner with no standing to intervene in the multiple judicial reviews that take place on those issues and no standing to take any official line on any of that. If we were to put the veterans commissioner on a statutory basis, with the available funding, there would be a role to be performed—and not just on that specific issue, but perhaps if there was a challenging judicial that touched on veterans’ issues. Why should the veterans commissioner not be a notified and intervening party in such proceedings? I think he should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I do acknowledge that important difference. I think that amendment 8 seeks to enhance and strengthen the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner from the chain of command, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

The German armed forces commissioner finds herself reporting and making recommendations on matters such as equipment and undermanning—matters that are well beyond the inalienable human rights of German service personnel not to be given an illegal order. My watchword is that, untrammelled, this proposal will grow arms and legs. Not only have we widened it to cover welfare, which, as I have argued, is very broadly interpretable, but we are giving the Armed Forces Commissioner an “access all areas” pass. We have enabled members of armed forces families—wider families—to be in touch with the commissioner, something that the German model does not follow. While I support amendment 8 and the chain of command, I am glad that I have had the opportunity to put my views on record.

[Luke Akehurst]

The tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s remarks suggests that he does not really support the thrust of the Bill, and is extremely sceptical about the potential areas of involvement of the Armed Forces Commissioner per se. Having heard what was said from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, I was under the impression that there was consensus across the House in favour of the thrust of the Bill and that today we would be talking about nuance and detail, so I seek reassurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he does in fact support the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Member will recall from his time on the Bill Committee that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referred to us as fulfilling the role of critical friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. and gallant Member is correct that we visited RAF Lossiemouth last week, where we saw people at the top of their game, doing what servicepeople do, which is coping, doing their job and putting a brave face on things. However, the continuous attitude survey shows the stress behind those things. The service they are, to some degree, enduring could be made better. Although servicepeople put a good face on their morale when we see them, that does not mean our services are in the buoyant state they could be.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that an easy way to measure morale is through retention rates? We are not recruiting and retaining armed forces personnel to the degree we would wish. Part of the motivation for introducing this Bill to address general service welfare issues—I am making sure that I use the correct language about what the Armed Forces Commissioner role covers—is to have an operational impact by making it easier to recruit people to the armed forces. And once we train them at great expense, we must retain them for the longest possible period of viable service.

[Mr Bailey]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We do not expect service personnel to stand up and openly tell us their problems, as that is part of what makes them resilient. The important thing about having an Armed Forces Commissioner is that they can see through that. The gallant Members of this House will be able to see through those things, and it would be wrong to politicise what people present of themselves during our visits, rather than what we would like them to make known, for political gain.

The truth, as my hon. Friend makes perfectly clear, is that we are not doing a very good job of recruiting and retaining personnel. The objection to new clause 1 is that it is important to focus on the specific needs that will enable us to have better recruitment and retention, because that is where we are failing. Perhaps that is why the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) is now in this House, rather than continuing his illustrious career.

The Government have also introduced a new cyber pathway to bring the best and brightest into our armed forces and to rebuild our defences for the future, particularly given the grey zone threats from Russia about which the Select Committee heard evidence this morning. This is also positive, but with 150,000 applicants attempting to join the military at any one time, if all those individuals were brought under the scope of the commissioner, as would happen if the new clause were enacted, that would vastly increase the commissioner’s workload and, ultimately, impact their efficiency and effectiveness. In proposing the new clause, Conservative Members are attempting to address a genuine problem, but I have concerns that, in practice, it could mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they rightly need.

On new clause 2, while the Armed Forces Commissioner’s role is focused on serving personnel, the Government are implementing a broader strategy of support for the entire armed forces community, including veterans, through various initiatives and legal protections. All veterans, including those sitting on the Opposition Benches, make an important contribution to our communities and our armed forces. However, the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit is purposefully defined narrowly to focus on issues currently impacting service personnel and their families. That allows the commissioner to effectively address immediate concerns facing those in uniform, including some of those that most concern me and most seriously affect retention for women and people from ethnic minorities, such as bullying and harassment.

The Bill is just one step in Labour’s plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served, and their families. Our Government are committed to strengthening support for the entire armed forces community, recognising that the issue of veteran support is distinct from those issues addressed by the Bill. The Government are working to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, ensuring fairness and respect to veterans and their families. Recent initiatives include a £75 million LGBT financial recognition scheme, acknowledging the historic wrongs experienced by our LGBT veterans; making the veterans card an accepted form of voter ID, crucial to mobile service members, as I know from my own experience; and committing £3.5 million for veteran homelessness support, including wraparound services for at-risk veterans.

While the Armed Forces Commissioner will primarily deal with those affected by service law, they will have the discretion to invite opinion from a broader range of stakeholders, including veterans, when conducting investigations. I would expect the commissioner to regularly use that power, as it is a critical part of their role, as Conservative Members have said. I hope Conversative Members recognise that flexibility is important in the Bill, as it will allow the commissioner to gather comprehensive insight in the exercise of their duties, but does not limit their independence or freedom to lead by narrowing their focus.

On amendment 7, while focused on serving personnel, the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner complements the broader armed forces covenant and existing legislation to support the entire military community. The armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who have served in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, as well as veterans and their families. Our Government are fully committed to the covenant and our election manifesto pledge was to put the covenant fully into law.

The Armed Forces Commissioner’s role focuses primarily on members of the serving community and their families, but they will undoubtedly consider covenant issues related to active service members and their families as part of general service welfare matters, as outlined in the Bill. That aligns with the commissioner’s functions to promote the welfare of service persons and their families, and to improve public understanding of the issues.

It is important to note that the Bill is not standalone legislation. Instead, it amends part of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which already includes part 16A addressing the armed forces covenant. Therefore, amendment 7 is not necessary. By integrating the commissioner’s role into the existing framework, we ensure a comprehensive approach to supporting both current and former members of the armed forces, reinforcing our commitment to the entire military community.

Amendment 8 would require the commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from interference when carrying out their duties. In response, the Bill provides greater independence and scrutiny for those upholding the welfare of armed forces personnel. I welcome that role, which will be subject to a full public appointment process and scrutiny by the Defence Committee, as mentioned earlier by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi).

The commissioner will be established as a corporation sole and will thus be independent of the Ministry of Defence, which is clearly important to give them the ability to hold people to account effectively. The commissioner will have discretion over what they investigate and the proactive power to launch investigations. Those provisions mean that the commissioner will stay focused on general service welfare matters and will be expected to have regular meetings with the chain of command. However, I fully agree that independence for the chain of command is vital.

--- Later in debate ---

I should say in fairness that the Forces Pension Society has suggested that the Government have made an error, and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs so contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

When I have finished this point, yes.

The Forces Pension Society points out that the system is recoverable because the changes are subject to a consultation and are not currently due to come in until April 2027. Nevertheless, this is still a potentially worrying situation, especially for armed forces families in which parents are in a committed relationship with multiple children but have not, for whatever reason, decided to marry.

We were prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt about that in Committee. Indeed, without wishing to be uncharitable, when I raised it he seemed slightly taken aback by the problem. I say that because my suspicion is that when the Treasury came up with this, the Ministry of Defence was blissfully unaware of it. I therefore suggest that MOD Ministers may not be directly at fault, but it is nevertheless their personnel and families who may be affected. Towards the conclusion of the Committee, I strongly suggested to the Armed Forces Minister that he should take this away for discussions with the Treasury, as there will be a consultation exercise on the changes before they come into force in the 2026-27 financial year, with the opportunity to change the policy and avert the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I am just going to reply to this one. Forgive me, but if my remarks were not in order, we would have been told so by now. Maybe one day, after many years of distinguished service, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) will become a Deputy Speaker of this House, but not today.

I will continue, and then I will take the other intervention. We really need to do something about this issue. As the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, it would be totally contrary to the principles of the armed forces covenant—including the principle that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to the Crown—if this were to go unanswered, and unmarried service widows and their families were to be punished in this way.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for being patient.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised some interesting specific policy issues that are clearly of concern to large numbers of people receiving armed forces pensions, but the Bill makes it clear—and Ministers have been very clear throughout its consideration—that the independent commissioner will decide for themselves what is a general service welfare matter, and therefore whether they want to look into the issues raised by amendments 9 and 10. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the apparent contradiction between Opposition Members insisting in amendment 8 that they want reassurance about the independence of the commissioner, and their wanting to predetermine the very specific topics that the commissioner would investigate through amendments 9 and 10?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about.

This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter:

“I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.”

However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well.

I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due.

Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However, I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well.

The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA.

Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be

“to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.”

I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board.

We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic.

The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would

“monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.”

The spending review—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record.

UK Submarine Fleet

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for ensuring that this important debate takes place. I especially wanted to put on the record my support for the Government’s nuclear triple lock, which demonstrates our commitment to the strategic nuclear deterrent and the industries that support it. It is really important that countries that might threaten us understand the strong support there is in Parliament for the strategic nuclear deterrent and the role it plays in protecting our country.

The nuclear triple lock commits us to the construction of the four new Dreadnought submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, which supports a huge number of high-quality, high-status apprenticeships and jobs—42,000 in, I believe, 2,500 suppliers across the UK directly and indirectly. The supply chain benefits are felt in every corner of the country. Dreadnought will enable Britain to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrent 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, securing protection for the UK and for our NATO allies, and ensuring that countries that might strategically threaten us understand that, ultimately, we have the protection of the nuclear deterrent. The triple lock also commits us to the delivery of all future upgrades needed for the submarines to patrol the waters and keep our country safe.

The submarine fleet as a whole is a fundamental part of UK defence both militarily and industrially, and is about the integration between those two parts. We have to keep the line of production going in Barrow to produce successive generations of submarines to carry the nuclear deterrent, and in the interim there is the much-needed attack submarines—each generation of SSNs—that we produce in the same facility. The two are dovetailed together, which means that the UK stays at the leading edge of submarine design and manufacturing. I reiterate that this provides extremely high-quality and highly skilled jobs and ensures the economic viability of a corner of the country that would otherwise be economically isolated, quite apart from jobs that extend into other parts of the country, such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson).

I welcome the commitment to AUKUS and the opportunities it will bring. AUKUS will create new contract opportunities for hundreds of small and medium-sized firms and 7,000 new jobs in UK shipyards and across the UK supply chain, as well as reinforce our international partnerships with two extremely important allies. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar. The debate has been a really important opportunity for a range of Members to reiterate their support for the UK’s submarine fleet.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I am disappointed that we did not somehow co-ordinate so that today the music that so often blares out on a Wednesday afternoon was “Yellow Submarine”. That song tells of the adventures of a submariner and reminds us to thank all those who serve as submariners in such confined conditions. It is so important that we recognise them, because the UK submarine fleet is critical to national security, economic development and defence of the rules-based international order.

As we have heard, the Royal Navy’s submarine fleet comprises nine vessels: five Astute-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. The fleet plays a central role in the UK’s defence strategy, providing a continuous at-sea deterrent and contributing to global security through intelligence, surveillance and undersea warfare capabilities, but the submarine fleet faces significant challenges. Issues such as manpower shortages, delays in maintenance and ageing infrastructure risk undermining the fleet’s operational readiness, and extended maintenance periods have raised concern about the Royal Navy’s ability to meet its current commitments as well as new obligations, such as deployments to Australia under the AUKUS agreement.

The UK submarine industry is critical not only for national defence but as a significant driver of economic growth and skills development. His Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, known as Faslane and home to the UK’s entire submarine fleet, has received over £1.8 billion in infrastructure investments since 2015, supporting over 6,000 military and civilian jobs, and making it one of Scotland’s largest employers. In addition, the construction of next-generation Dreadnought-class sub-surface ballistic nuclear submarines and the AUKUS submarine programme is projected to create more than 20,000 jobs across the UK, including, as has been mentioned, 17,000 new roles at Rolls-Royce in Derby. These projects foster expertise in engineering, nuclear propulsion and advanced manufacturing, ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of global submarine technology. It is essential that we continue to invest in training and apprenticeships to attract young people to this critical sector. Our young people need to develop the skills necessary to carry out these critical projects.

Maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent is a cornerstone of our national security policy. For over 50 years, the continuous at-sea deterrent has been an unbroken line of defence against nuclear threats. Although I believe that the end goal should be multilateral disarmament, the reality is that the global security environment, which includes threats from state and non-state actors, makes it imperative to retain a robust deterrent.

The AUKUS trilateral security agreement with Australia and the United States marks a significant step forward in international defence co-operation. As part of this partnership, the UK will provide Australia with nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines based on our next-generation SSN-AUKUS design.

[Luke Akehurst]

Can the hon. Lady confirm something for me? Her remarks suggest that the Liberal Democrats now support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, but I remember a review when Nick Clegg was the leader of the Liberal Democrats that suggested scrapping the continuous at-sea deterrent and using coastal-launched cruise missiles, or aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, which I thought was most dangerous. I would be very reassured if it is now the case that the Liberal Democrats support the continuous at-sea deterrent.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

For the convenience of the Committee, I will take amendments 9 and 10 in reverse order.

Essentially, amendment 10 is intended to ensure that the office of the commissioner is sufficiently well resourced to undertake its role effectively, independently of the Ministry of Defence. The explanatory notes to the Bill intimate that once the office is up and running, it will start off with a budget of approximately £5 million, as the Minister confirmed on Second Reading.

The Bill does not mandate a specific number of staff to assist the commissioner; it is not that prescriptive. Given that the role has a wider remit than that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, it seems likely that more staff will be required to carry out the expanded function—not least because it will now include visits to service establishments, some of which the commissioner could be empowered to conduct on an unannounced basis, subject to certain safeguards, if they thought that the issues that they were examining merited it.

The purpose of amendment 10 is to reinforce the idea that the office should be adequately resourced by mandating the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State, which is effectively the commissioner’s budget, should increase by at least real terms each year, defined using the consumer prices index measure of inflation, which is published by the Office for National Statistics. I hope that amendment 10 is relatively uncontroversial and that the Minister might even be tempted to accept it. We can but try.

Amendment 9 would mandate that at least one member of the commissioner’s staff be a King’s counsel.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the Committee an idea of the annual cost of a King’s counsel, so that we can have an idea of what percentage of the proposed budget that would be? Why he is choosing to be prescriptive about the need for this particular element of staffing? That seems to contradict earlier pushes in amendments to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. If we are appointing a commissioner, surely we should trust them to determine the configuration of their staff.

[Mr Francois]

There are two questions there. On the first, the honest answer is that it depends on the KC. In my limited experience, different King’s counsels tend to charge different rates. One would hope that the commissioner would employ someone who was good at their job, so yes there would be a public expenditure cost.

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I am going to come in a moment to the exact rationale for why we have sought to mandate that at least one of the commissioner’s staff should be a qualified KC; he slightly pre-empts me. But I hope I can convince the Committee that there is a genuinely good reason for doing so and I am going to produce at least one real-world example. If that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will make some progress. Did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, sitting next to him, also seek to intervene or have I inadvertently answered her question?

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Francois]

I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point, for which I thank her. There are a number of wider issues—one of them is education, and particularly special educational needs—and I will touch on those in the clause stand part debate, if it pleases the Chair. The hon. Lady may recall that I gave the Minister a pretty fair heads-up about that on Tuesday. I tabled the amendment so that we could raise the specific issue of pensions, which is a concern for armed forces personnel, rather than discussing it under clause stand part.

To drive that point home before I conclude my remarks, Larisa Brown, the excellent defence editor of The Times, has just published an article online entitled, “Call to spare troops’ loved ones from inheritance tax trap.” Its subheading is: “Death in service payments for unmarried members of the armed forces who die off-duty will be subjected to the levy under plans announced in the budget”. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is very much a live issue as of about 14 minutes ago.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I will try to be brief. This amendment in no way precludes the raising of any of the other issues that the hon. Lady mentioned. It does not say, for instance, that the commissioner can look only at pensions—not at all. However, it does specifically make it clear that the commissioner is empowered to look at pensions, because they kick in, by definition, when armed forces personnel leave the service. Some people might try to argue that pensions are not a general service welfare issue because personnel are no longer serving, but they very much are—not least because, as the Minister will know, they very much affect retention. They might also affect recruitment slightly, but pensions are certainly very important in retention. Sometimes they are the overwhelming reason that people stay in the service, depending on their personal financial circumstances.

I see the hon. Lady’s point, but all this is doing is making it very clear, beyond peradventure, that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit would extend to pensions. I admit that it also gave us an opportunity to raise this very important issue, which the Forces Pension Society raised with me a little while ago. When I met its representatives, they were genuinely worried about this, and my amendment was an opportunity to put the issue on the table and on the Government’s radar, as it were. That is what I was seeking to achieve.

[Luke Akehurst]

On one level, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for finding an opportunity to raise this issue in the context of the Bill Committee. It is one for which I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I represent a constituency with a large number of retired service personnel. On the other hand, it is a little cheeky to use a Bill Committee to raise a substantive policy issue that could have been raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps in Defence questions.

[Mr Francois]

Is this another brief intervention?

[Luke Akehurst]

I am sorry—I will be as brief as I can. I am getting used to being brief. What led the right hon. Gentleman to suspect that this issue might be in any way excluded? I hope the Minister will clarify that the Bill is designed to be permissive and broad, and to allow the commissioner to define what a general welfare issue might be. I do not think there is any attempt to exclude—

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very pithy intervention. He pays me a back-handed compliment. How outrageous that His Majesty’s Opposition should try to raise a difficult issue in the middle of a Bill Committee; if I were to go back through the annals of Hansard down the centuries, I am sure there would be some precedent for that.

This was a timely opportunity, if I can put it like that, to table the issue. There is a consultation coming up, and I suspect, looking at his face, that the Minister was not really au fait with this issue—I am not being rude to him—but he is now, and I will be very interested to hear what he has to say.

The key point here is that death in service benefits have traditionally been payable if someone dies while in the armed forces or in the service of the Crown, whether or not they were on active service. A person who died back at home with their family would still qualify for the money. Under the armed forces pension scheme, they would still qualify if they had a regular partner. Under the Bill, however, because we are now dealing with the inheritance tax rules, unless the individual is married or in a civil partnership the exemptions do not apply. That is the critical point. I suspect the Ministry of Defence had not picked up on it. The Forces Pension Society, which exists for exactly this kind of eventuality, has done what it says on the tin and raised an issue that could materially affect armed forces pensions. In some ways, I am acting as their factotum this afternoon in tabling the issue.

[Mr Francois]

I think it is. Those who have left the service, are by definition no longer subject to service law; they are subject to the laws of the country like any other civilians, as that is what they have become, albeit they are civilians with the special status of being a veteran, which we should respect. But they are no longer serving in His Majesty’s armed forces. The amendment would allow the commissioner to expand their remit little bit in order to look at pension-related issues, which are something that armed forces personnel regard as part of their general service welfare. When they are taking that stick or twist decision, weighing up the pluses and minuses of whether to stay or leave—particularly if they have been in the service for some years and have accumulated a reasonable pension pot—that is definitely something that they will take into account.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, and he knows the challenge that all commanding officers face in retaining personnel, particularly experienced personnel. It is part of that stick or twist decision, which is why we believe that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to look at it. The amendment would remove any doubt that they had the ability to do that, while—to come back to the point made by hon. Member for Broxtowe—in no way precluding their being able to look at anything else.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will try to be more pithy this time. I thought there was a separate proposal for a veterans’ commissioner. Should not matters that affect former service personnel after the point when technically they have ceased to serve, or their families if they are deceased, sit in the purview of a veterans’ commissioner, not the Armed Forces Commissioner?

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because if he looks down the list of amendments, he will see that new clause 2 talks specifically about veterans’ commissioners. Perhaps at that point he might want to intervene on me again, as long as it does not mean Mr Betts misses his train.

I hope that I have made my point. I shall be interested to hear what other Members in the Committee think, and particularly what the Minister’s view is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

Members of the Committee will be aware that line 35 on page 2 defines a general welfare matter using its own terms; it says that a general welfare matter is a matter to do with welfare. Thinking back to when we all did English GCSE—or O-level, in the case of some of us—we know that using terms to define themselves is a bit self-defeating, because they do not really define anything. I assume that is deliberate, and maybe the Minister will tell us so. The provision is incredibly broadly drawn and gives the commissioner very free reign as to what they consider a welfare matter to be, with one or two exclusions that the Minister mentioned earlier.

I think that is important, because I keep being told, and I have read in the explanatory notes, that this is all inspired by the German model. When I ask what is so great about the German model, I read that it is because German members of the armed forces are really happy with it. On Tuesday, General Gregory said that to do their job effectively, the armed forces commissioner needs a clear and deep view of defence outputs. People being happy with a part of the bureaucracy is not a defence output. The only one that trumps everything else is the ability to deliver legal, lethal force. In summary, the armed forces need to be able to kill lots of people.

[Luke Akehurst]

Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—it is almost as if he read my speech. I was going to stay on my German theme and say that one person who interpreted that general definition of welfare was another German: General Erwin Rommel. He said that the best form of welfare is better training, because more training means fewer widows.

Although the Bill and the Minister attempt to draw the line between operations abroad and welfare at home, those things rub up against each other. For example, the Ministry of Defence has targets for nights out of bed. How much time can personnel be expected to spend away without their service becoming too detrimental to their family life? Equally, it has these things that sound wonderful—I thought it was to do with hairspray—called harmony guidelines. In fact, they are to do with how long the armed forces can send people away for without a specified dwell time in between for them to recuperate.

From a welfare point of view, it is perfectly possible that the Armed Forces Commissioner could focus solely on whether a commanding officer, a unit, a brigade, a ship’s captain or whatever was meeting the nights out of bed guidelines or the harmony guidelines. But the captain of that ship or the commanding officer of that unit might well think, as Rommel did, that more training was better in the long run for the welfare of their personnel. I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.

My other concern is much more strategic: by having an Armed Forces Commissioner with these extended powers and the ability to report to Parliament, we put a spotlight on one aspect of militarism, potentially to the detriment of other aspects of it, such as the defence output of killing lots of people. That is important because the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the defence board, will be making strategic balance-of-investment decisions between things such as buying a lot more jets and getting damp-proof courses for quarters.

Look at the figures in the House of Commons Defence Committee report into service accommodation, which was published yesterday. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were minded to rectify the parlous state of some parts of the defence estate, that alone would use up every single penny of the, I think, £2.6 billion extra that the Chancellor has found to increase the defence budget.

I alert the Minister to the fact that over time, the instigation of this parliamentary-level scrutiny of one aspect of the make-up of defence may well strategically shift us away from the defence output of lethality. It is a reductio argument, but we could have a fully manned armed forces with everyone giving 100% scores on the continuous attitude survey, great pensions and fantastic pay, but they cannot win a war. Clearly, that is not where we want to get to. We have to put in place measures and judgments that mean that the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the instigation and extension of their powers, does not undermine the military chain of command or the capacity to fight.

UK Air and Missile Defences

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK air and missile defences.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight a critical weakness in our national defences. I am sure it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I say this, but I sincerely believe that outside this place, and even among many of our colleagues, it is not appreciated that the diversity of the threat we now face from air attack, and the lack of our defences against it, is at its most serious in decades.

This debate is about defences against conventional air and missile threats, not nuclear threats—for that we maintain our continuous at-sea strategic nuclear deterrent. The world is more unstable today than at any point since the cold war, but sadly, despite a changing threat environment, I fear our defences have not been adapted quickly enough to deter or protect against it. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee’s report published in September, which analysed the lessons we can learn from Ukraine, laid out in stark terms the significant weaknesses in European defences. Key among them is the fact that our air and missile defences are, frankly, inadequate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only brought conventional warfare back to mainland Europe, but has shown in stark terms the importance of credible and robust air and missile defences.

Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since February 2022. About 80% of them have been intercepted, thanks to different air defence systems protecting military and civilian infrastructure, but that still means that thousands of missiles have impacted, often to devastating effect. Earlier this month, over the course of just one week, Russia used more than 800 guided aerial bombs, about 460 attack drones and more than 20 missiles of various types against Ukraine.

During the cold war NATO’s air defences were a largely static system arrayed in belts around a unidirectional and well-defined threat of manned aircraft from the Soviet Union, but today’s environment is less predictable. The range of air and missile threats is larger and the threat can come from any direction. Indeed, according to reports from earlier this year, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity deemed necessary to protect allies in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack.

Unlike Ukraine, the UK has some obvious geographical protection from attacks by ground-based short-range missiles and drones, but two significant and concerning reports over recent days show once again that there is no cause for complacency. First, Russia is now prepared to use intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine. This is the first successful use of that type of missile with conventional warheads in combat. They are harder to intercept and represent a significant escalation. The second concerning report in recent days relates to the presence of unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles around three RAF bases—Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell—between 20 and 22 November and overnight on 25 November. I do not expect the Minister to go into too much detail about that recent incident or about what counter-measures are in place at our bases, but both reports show that short-range and long-range threats to the UK are very real, very diverse, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them.

If we look at events in the middle east, we can also see the diversity of short to long-range aerial threats. Israel has faced rocket, drone and ballistic missile attacks from Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In October, Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel following its previous attack involving 300 missiles and drones in April, but, unlike the UK, Israel has a sophisticated and multi-layered air and missile defence system to counter wide-ranging aerial threats. The Iron Dome intercepts short-range rockets of the type fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. David’s Sling can intercept medium to long-range rockets, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 can intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Recently, we saw the deployment of US THAAD—terminal high altitude area defence—batteries to bolster defences against ballistic missile threats.

The UK’s current air defence capabilities against such threats are primarily made up of Sea Viper on Type 45 destroyers, utilising Aster missiles, Sky Sabre ground-based air defence, and quick reaction alert Typhoon fighter jets. Typhoons on quick reaction alert at Coningsby and Lossiemouth can intercept potential hostile airborne threats, including aircraft and UAVs. The Sky Sabre ground-based air defence system can intercept multiple cruise missiles, aircraft and UAVs up to 25 km away. However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland. Clearly, many more such systems would be needed to provide sufficient cover to a larger number of critical military and civilian national infrastructure sites across the UK.

I know the business case for more Sky Sabre launchers has been approved, but orders have not yet been made. Bizarrely, no business case has been made for ordering more missiles for Sky Sabre, despite such orders taking longer to fulfil. Crucially, Sky Sabre cannot defend against ballistic or hypersonic missile threats—it was not designed to do so. The only defence the UK currently has against ballistic missiles is Sea Viper, which utilises Aster 30 missiles on our six Type 45 destroyers. Sea Viper can currently track potential threats at ranges of up to 250 miles, and eliminate them within about 70 miles.

I know that Sea Viper is being upgraded over the next decade, with initial operation capability in 2028. That is very welcome, but given that we have only a few Type 45s in service at any one time, the coverage that they can provide in defence of homeland targets against ballistic missile threats is limited. To defend London against ballistic missile threats, a Type 45 destroyer would have to be permanently moored in the Thames estuary, which would mean that it could not do anything else. In particular, it would be unavailable for its primary role of protecting one of our aircraft carriers from air and missile threats. That alone makes the case that some form of new or upgraded ground-based air defence system that provides protection against threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles, is needed.

To consider only the military critical national infrastructure that would be vulnerable to air attack and would need adequate protection, we have the three main Royal Navy operating bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde; seven RAF bases, including Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby; and the major Army garrisons. We have radar sites, ammunition depots, and overseas sites, including the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, unlike sites in the UK. Major defence industrial sites would also presumably be at risk. Then there is a plethora of significant civilian infrastructure that could be targeted, including nuclear power stations, large transport hubs, industrial sites and Government buildings. We know tragically from the war in Ukraine that Russia has no compunction about hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, shopping centres or concentrations of housing, purely to terrorise the civilian population and degrade national morale.

The previous Government’s integrated and defence reviews slowly started to acknowledge the threat from air attack. The 2023 Defence Command Paper described the threat as being

“at its most acute for over thirty years”.

Clearly, the resources have not yet been put into upscaling equipment and filling the gaps in capability that we need to counter that.

Other European countries have been taking the issue seriously and placing orders. In the past decade, France and Italy have jointly developed the medium-range SAMP/T air defence system, which can intercept ballistic missiles, drones, fighter jets and other targets. In September, France ordered eight new SAMP/T NG systems, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. The first ones will enter service in 2026. Italy also ordered 10 of these new systems, which will utilise upgraded Aster 30 missiles.

Many European countries already utilise the American Patriot air defence system. To bolster that, existing operators Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are procuring 1,000 additional Patriot missiles between them. Poland has signed contracts worth £4 billion with UK industry to deliver the NAREW next-generation air defence system. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France and Hungary are jointly buying around 1,500 Mistral short-range air defence—SHORAD—missiles. Latvia and Estonia are jointly procuring IRIS-T for medium-range interception, and Finland has ordered the David’s Sling system.

To fill capability gaps and ensure interoperability, we should be working with our European NATO partners on joint procurement. The Government have said that the UK is engaging with the European Sky Shield initiative, which seeks to establish a ground-based integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capability. There are clearly different views across Europe about which systems it should comprise to ensure not only interoperability but to develop and maintain Europe’s defence industrial base.

I am aware that the UK signed a letter of intent to launch the integrated air and missile DIAMOND initiative in October, alongside six allies: France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. That is clearly welcome, as it shows the seriousness with which the threat is recognised, but there is no clear timetable of key milestones associated with the DIAMOND initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update.

It is not just our ability to take down hostile airborne threats that we must consider; there is also our ability to detect them in the first place. It is no secret that we have only a limited number of fixed and mobile land-based radars on UK soil, which would probably be among the first targets vulnerable to air attack. The previous Government’s early retirement of E-3 Sentry left a capability gap in airborne early warning and control, which has only been compounded by delays in the E-7 Wedgetail programme.

Airborne early warning and control will be crucial in monitoring the western and south-western coasts of the UK, where ground-based radar is limited, to detect potential submarine-launched threats. We also need to take seriously the potential for radar evasion along the east coast, particularly by UAVs or projectiles passing through wind farms. The Government are actively working on deconflicting windfarms and existing air defence surveillance systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could speak briefly about that.

Ministers will be acutely aware of everything I have said but, as I said at the start of the debate, I do not think many of our colleagues, including across Government outside the Ministry of Defence, appreciate the scale or seriousness of the issue. The defence analyst Francis Tusa has compared the current situation with that found by General Frederick Pile in 1937 when he was appointed commander of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division. General Pile highlighted the severe lack of anti-aircraft batteries to defend civilian and military locations. His analysis led to an increase in personnel in anti-aircraft roles and the mass production of anti-aircraft artillery.

Our armed forces are among the best and most capable in the world but, unfortunately, the defence they can provide today against significant airborne threats to the homeland, such as missile attack, is very limited. We have highly capable equipment but not enough of it to protect the significant amount of critical infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country, and to defend troops deployed on operations overseas. Principally, that is because we spent most of the previous few decades focused on expeditionary overseas missions rather than active homeland defence. We have been too slow to adapt to the changing threat picture.

The lack of active homeland defence is fundamentally a strategic failure. I hope the ongoing strategic defence review will deem it such and outline how it can be urgently addressed. The first responsibility of our Government is to protect our people and defend our freedom. I fear that further delay in outlining the action we are going to take and, crucially, the budget to deliver it, brings only greater risk of catastrophic failure in fulfilling that fundamental responsibility.

Addressing that capability gap needs to be an urgent political, funding and industrial priority for Government. I hope the Minister feels that this debate helps her demonstrate the political support in Parliament for tackling it.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

Actually, I think it is appropriate that the time has been used by the Minister, because getting those reassurances is extremely important. That is what we all wanted to hear. I am particularly pleased that she recognised that the purpose of the debate was to demonstrate the support across the House, as well as the knowledge of the set of threats. I welcome her saying that a key part of the SDR will be to look at preparedness against missile threats.

I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that he need have no concerns about support for the nuclear deterrent. A recurring theme of my entire political life has been getting stuck into the arguments for the sustaining and renewal of the nuclear deterrent. It is part of my political brand. I am sure we can have that debate another time.

I thank all hon. Members who contributed. There were important contributions from Members who have an industrial interest in their constituency. From Thales to MBDA, we have some excellent technologies around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) made an excellent contribution about the wider industrial concerns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made another insightful contribution, based on his service in the armed forces—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I welcome the bipartisan tone and constructive approach taken by the Opposition parties in their contributions. It is fitting that we are debating this Bill for the first time so soon after the Remembrance events held over the last few weeks.

The members of our armed forces who put their life on the line for the safety and security of our country and our people give the greatest service it is possible to give. Over 5% of the adult population of my constituency of North Durham have served in our armed forces. As someone from a civilian background, I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members on both sides of this House who have served.

The Bill is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces because for too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling. According to the latest armed forces continuous attitude survey, nearly six in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “low”, and this figure has sadly been increasing for the last few years. Just one in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “high” and a third of personnel do not feel valued. We know that service life impacts not just those in uniform but their families, too. Whether it relates to housing, employment or the effect on their children, military spouses often have a negative view of the impact that service life is having on them and their family. That is why it is so important that this Bill will create the first ever independent champion, not just for serving personnel but for their families.

The Bill is not only about the welfare of those who serve today; it is about making service life more attractive so that our rates of recruitment and retention in the armed forces improve. We currently have the Service Complaints Ombudsman, established by the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015—but, as the Secretary of State said, their remit is too narrow and reactive. The ombudsman can investigate individual complaints only after the service complaints process has finished, and they do not have the remit to consider broader matters impacting the welfare of serving personnel. Replacing the ombudsman with a new Armed Forces Commissioner who can launch their own investigations and make broader recommendations is therefore a positive step forward. Indeed, that has been called for by successive Service Complaints Ombudsmen themselves. A new Armed Forces Commissioner will give service personnel and their families a direct contact to reach out to, in order to raise issues that impact service life, from equipment to accommodation and unacceptable behaviours.

I note that the Government expect the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner to be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million a year. The German armed forces commissioner—the role on which the Secretary of State has said this new role is based—has 60 parliamentary staff to support them. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how many staff he envisages the UK Armed Forces Commissioner having. The Defence Committee has raised questions about how we can ensure that the commissioner is truly independent from the Secretary of State, and I would welcome further clarity on that.

The Bill fulfils the commitment in our manifesto to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner. It acknowledges the need for change to better support serving personnel, with new powers to carry out investigations, visit defence sites unannounced and report to Parliament. The role outlined in the Bill will clearly have a greater impact than the existing arrangements, to the benefit of service personnel and their families and ultimately, therefore, to the benefit of the morale and the retention rates of the armed forces and the defence of the country. It is another action towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I therefore welcome the Bill.