Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.

Strategic Defence Review

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I can confirm that the process is under way. We are giving it our full attention, and we will make any decisions as soon as we can.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been raising concerns about the state of our air and missile defences. I welcome that air and missile defence is a key focus in the SDR, which will make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. Notwithstanding previously announced initiatives to bolster collaboration on air and missile defence with our allies, can the Secretary of State give us more detail on what conclusions the SDR drew on this vital aspect of national defence?

[John Healey]

The SDR drew the conclusion that we need to take potential threats to our homeland more seriously than we have needed to do in the past. That is the reason why I have made the commitment that we will invest £1 billion in this Parliament to further strengthen in particular radar, communications and the integration of our missile and air defence. My hon. Friend will appreciate that part of the UK’s air and missile defence is provided by our NATO allies, and we have great protection in the fact that our frontline is not on the coast of the UK: our frontline with Russia is on the borders of the eastern flank.

Defence Industries: North-East

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Luke Myer]

I absolutely agree. The investment that is coming to Thales will mean thousands of advanced air defence missiles that will be supplied to Ukraine. That is a really important cause, and of course there will be a benefit to the entire supply chain across the United Kingdom as well.

Strong national defence starts well before the battlefield. It is about the skilled workers in our factories—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for giving way. I wanted to intervene just after his description of the excellent existing capabilities and proud defence industry history in the region, to add the caveat that nowadays, sadly, we have the fewest defence jobs directly supported by Ministry of Defence spending of any of the regions—there are 1,600 according to recent MOD figures—and the lowest amount of MOD spend by region, at £380 million. Those jobs and that spending are obviously welcome, but the figures are below those for the next lowest region, which is Yorkshire and Humber, and in some regions, such as the north-west, which obviously has a significant cluster with BAE, Barrow and things like that, spending reaches £7 billion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that imbalance represents something of a missed opportunity, given the region’s defence heritage and the passionate, patriotic nature of the workforce, who would probably love to work in the defence industries? Does he agree that we need to ensure that when the increased national spending is rolled out, some of that imbalance is addressed and the north-east is restored to its historical role as one of the flagship regions for defence manufacturing in the UK?

[Luke Myer]

I agree. The increase in defence spending an opportunity to uplift regional economies and tackle regional inequality. However, I do not want to talk down our region because we do have firms, large and small, that are contributing to our national security and industrial resilience, including Babcock in Newcastle, Nifco in Stockton, Merlin Flex in Hartlepool, Draken at Teesside airport, Tees Components in my constituency, and many others. I am proud to champion Tees Components, a family-run business based in the small village of North Skelton. It delivers world-leading precision engineering for projects including our Astute-class submarines. That is our region in action.

Ukraine Update

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I have already said this afternoon that the Prime Minister has made it clear to President Trump, as I have done to Secretary Hegseth in the US, that we support absolutely their bid to secure a negotiated peace and we expect there to be a role for the US in helping to secure that peace for the long term. What we are leading alongside the French is a determined effort—a coalition of the willing—that demonstrates that European nations like us and the French, with the capability to lead such a deployment, are willing to step up and do more. But, as I have said, Europe and nations like the UK stepping up does not necessarily mean the US stepping away.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The strength of unity these past few weeks in the Ukraine defence contact group and the coalition of the willing has sent an important signal at a critical time for Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is critical that we and allies express our unwavering support for Ukraine’s right to exist, its freedom and its national sovereignty?

[John Healey]

I do indeed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might help me with some of my speechwriting, as he put it succinctly and much more sharply than I have done this afternoon. This is what is at stake as the Ukrainians fight for their future, fight for their country and fight for their freedom. It is down to us to provide them with the support that they need both in the fight and in the efforts to negotiate a longer-term peace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the specifics, I will certainly look into that. He sets out for the House the character of some of the neglect and decline that we have seen in our forces housing for so long, and the bind that previous Governments have been in, without the power or control to make the upgrades and plan for wholesale renewal for the future. That is what our housing review will start to fix. We cannot fix these deep-seated, long-running problems overnight, but we are determined to do better than we have done in the past.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure forces families in North Durham that the Labour Government are ending the previous Conservative Government’s failed approach of papering over the cracks, and are instead taking action to deliver new, high-quality family homes for our service personnel over the years to come?

[John Healey]

I can indeed. My hon. Friend and I stood on a manifesto, on which we were elected as a Government, that committed to ending the scandal of forces family homes. The buy-back that we have put in place is the start of delivering on that promise for armed forces families and delivering, as we are doing on a number of fronts, for defence.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam]

I concur with the hon. Member completely. In the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Against that backdrop, let us continue. As I mentioned, today’s debate has been secured on no other premise than to find the truth. At this moment, the global order that we helped to build stands on the precipice of collapse. If we, as one of its architects, fail to uphold the principles that we established, we will also be complicit in its destruction. No one voted me in to resolve the conflict in the middle east overnight singlehandedly, or expects me to do so, but what the British people in their millions are demanding—rightfully and unequivocally—is moral clarity, a strategic commitment to ending hostilities and the absolute assurance that our nation is not complicit in facilitating war crimes.

Today’s debate will not delve into the historical archives of the conflict, which date from Balfour onwards—the Nakba, the occupation and the consistent humiliation, or the Hamas atrocities of 7 October. Instead, this is a legal and moral inquiry into our nation’s military co-operation with Israel in the face of credible allegations, including of genocide, now before the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has ruled that the occupation is illegal and warned that Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute genocide. Under international law, the UK has an obligation not only to refrain from facilitating those crimes but to prevent them actively. Yet despite that duty, our country continues to engage in military co-operation with Israel. The question before us is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Government have introduced arms export licence suspensions, which target any weapons that might be of British origin that would be used in Gaza, but are attempting to balance that with the needs of the IDF to defend itself against acts of aggression—for instance, the Iranian missile attacks in other theatres in which the IDF is operating?

[Shockat Adam]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; that is something I will come on to. The question is very clear: are we upholding the rule of law or are we complicit in its erosion? Too often we speak in numbers. Tens of thousands are dead and millions displaced, but as the saying goes:

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

Before we proceed, I want us all to pause not to cite figures, but to honour lives lost—two specifically. Shaban al-Dalou was a 19-year-old software engineering student who had already been displaced five times. The eldest of five siblings, he had memorised the entire Quran and was just days away from his 20th birthday when an Israeli airstrike hit the Al-Aqsa hospital compound. The world witnessed the horrific image of Shaban attached to an IV bag, his body burning alive. His mother, the woman who had nurtured his every single dream, was killed alongside him. For a crumb of solace they were buried together in an embrace.

Who can forget the face of Hind Rajab, a six-year-old girl who was trapped in a car with five of her dead relatives, their bodies riddled with bullets? The whole world heard her call for help—a voice scared but full of hope. Rescuers from the Palestine Red Crescent Society responded. Unfortunately, they too were killed. These are not statistics; these are human lives. Let us take time to look at their faces. The question before us again is: did we as a nation facilitate those crimes?

Following this, in September 2024, our Government acknowledged that Israel was at clear risk of not complying with international humanitarian law and admitted that there was a risk that UK arms exports might be used to commit serious violations. Yet according to Campaign Against Arms Trade, potentially £100 million-worth of military equipment has been approved for export to Israel, including spare parts for F-35 fighter jets that require continuous maintenance to remain operational, therefore constantly requiring spare parts. Furthermore, exports of F-35 parts are covered under what we call an open general licence, which allows unlimited exports to all approved partners worldwide., so we will never know the real numbers. Given that more than 15% of every F-35 is made in the UK, Israeli airstrikes would simply not be possible without British components.

[Shockat Adam]

In addition to the 400 the hon. Member mentions, we have seen close to 50,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of whom have been women and children. In addition to the manufacture and supply of F-35 parts, it appears that RAF Marham in Norfolk has been used at least seven times to send spare parts directly to Israel. Since declaring a so-called suspension of arms exports, the UK has issued 34 new licences, including those for essential aircraft components. I ask the Minister directly: which licences were suspended in September 2024, which licences remain suspended, and why have the Government refused to publish details of arms exports between July and September 2024?

Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Member not accept that in the unlikely event that RAF transport aircraft had been carrying something as large as a helicopter or a military vehicle from Cyprus to Israel—it is the first time I have heard that allegation—we might have seen evidence of such helicopters or military vehicles of British provenance? The Israel Defence Forces have no need of such equipment. They have far more equipment than the British armed forces do.

[Shockat Adam]

That is the question that I wish to be answered. Were we involved, directly or indirectly, in the Israeli operation in Nuseirat in June 2024, when 276 Palestinians were killed at the rescue of four Israeli hostages? Critically, has our intelligence been used to conduct air strikes? If so, under article 25 of the Rome statute, is the UK now legally complicit in war crimes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this timely debate. We need to consider the potential vicarious liability of the UK state in military activities in Palestine and the middle east.

The murder of more than 400 Palestinians in Gaza last night must outrage us all. In the past fortnight, the passage of aid through Israeli checkpoints has been denied, leaving the Palestinian population in Gaza with less food, less water and fewer vital medical supplies. Israel’s rejection of the ceasefire and its extreme military action overnight has escalated the killing of civilians in Gaza, including women and children. It is a reasonable assumption that those airstrikes were conducted at least in part with F-35s, for which the UK continues to manufacture parts and supply maintenance parts. Will the Minister clarify whether they were used on this and previous occasions?

Despite the partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel, the Government left a deliberate loophole in place, allowing the export of F-35 parts to Israel via the global spare parts pool. In addition, the Government have issued at least a further 34 arms export licences to Israel since the original suspension—more than they originally blocked. According to new arms export licensing data published by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the Government approved an open licence for components for combat aircraft. That licence appears incompatible with the Government’s supposed commitment not to supply military equipment that could be used in Gaza.

From reports of the High Court case between Al-Haq and the Business and Trade Secretary, we have been made aware that the Government continued sending F-35 fighter jet components to Israel despite knowing that there was a clear risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is more likely that F-35s were in use to shoot down Iranian drones, cruise missiles and other projectiles that were fired at Israel? Israel needs to use that platform to defend itself, given that it has faced two of the largest barrages of weapons fired at civilian targets since world war two.

[Andy McDonald]

As my hon. Friend has mentioned on several occasions, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend itself against Iranian attacks. It can have all the arms it wishes for, and it has the protection of other people from around the region, but the prerequisite is that it observes international humanitarian law in respect of the Palestinian people and that it vacates the illegally occupied west bank. Those are the conditions on which it should receive support.

Since the Government announced their partial suspension of arms export licences but maintained exports to the F-35 global supply pool, I have asked in the main Chamber, in Westminster Hall and in written questions whether they are engaging in discussions with F-35 partner nations about whether the supply of F-35s and spare parts to Israel could be suspended. They have made no effort to address that matter in the House, other than to claim that they cannot take action on the global spares pool without bringing the F-35 programme into peril, which would have implications for international peace and security. Preventing UK arms exports—specifically F-35 jets, which are dropping 2,000 lb bombs on Gaza with UK-made components—from being used in war crimes by Israel against Palestinians is in no way a threat to international security in Ukraine or elsewhere.

The US and the UK have actively constructed a false dichotomy in which the lives of Palestinians are pitted against the lives of other civilians. Continuing to transfer F-35 components to Israel is a violation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations, which include the strategic export licensing criteria, the arms trade treaty, the Geneva conventions and the genocide convention. Will the Minister say whether the F-35 joint programme office could control material movement based on part or number configuration? Will the UK consider raising with partner nations the need to temporarily suspend sales of parts to a nation that, last night, murdered several hundred civilians in Gaza? Will he state the legal implications for the Government if it is concluded that the F-35s have been used to pursue war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide against the Palestinians?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this debate today and for the sincerity of the remarks that he made. I know this is an issue that he cares deeply about. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Recent months have seen dramatic shifts in global geopolitics, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown in defending our country’s alliances in uncertain times. These developments are a reminder of how important our country’s defence and security relationships are. In the middle east, we have deep and historical links with both Israel and much of the Arab world. The military co-operation between the UK and Israel helps to keep our country safe. Over decades, Britain and Israel have conducted joint military exercises in areas such as counter-terrorism, cyber-security and defence technology. British troops have been kept safe thanks to co-operation with Israel’s cutting-edge defence sector, particularly in unmanned aerial vehicles, missile defence and radar systems.

The UK and Israel share intelligence on counter-terrorism and security threats posed by Iran, ISIS and other malign actors, both in the middle east and at home. Indeed, it is my understanding that the surveillance flights are actually collecting intelligence relating to the hostages in Gaza, including Avinatan Or, whose mother is British and who has now been held captive for 528 days. I hope the Minister will be able to update us today on whether the UK will continue those surveillance flights and do everything we can to bring Avinatan home.

The UK and Israel’s defence co-operation strengthens our international alliances, most obviously through the F-35 programme, which some other hon. Members have rather maligned today, but which has created more than 20,000 jobs in the UK. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that there will be no change to the UK’s participation in the F-35 programme, and that British- made parts will not be withheld from any of the other participants? Disrupting collaborative programmes that have been painstakingly negotiated over decades with multiple international partners—in this case a programme where we have a unique position as the only tier 1 partner—would mean that we would not be trusted to be a reliable partner in future international collaborative programmes that are critical for our national security, our technological base and the future of our aerospace industry.

I will finish by saying that military co-operation with Israel brings benefits to civilian populations in the middle east—Israeli and Palestinian. Last year, when Iran launched unprecedented ballistic missile attacks against Israel, which could have killed Palestinians as well as Israelis, British jets and intelligence played their role in shooting them down, saving Israeli and Palestinian lives and avoiding a huge escalation that could have brought all-out war across the region. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the Government intend to strengthen our military co-operation with the middle east’s only democracy.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

rose—

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.