Ukraine

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is day 1,030 of Putin’s illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I would like to update the House on the current situation in Ukraine.

Ukrainians are approaching their third Christmas since Putin launched his illegal, full-scale assault. Russian forces are over 1,000 days into a war Putin thought would be over in less than a week. The Ukrainian people have paid a horrendous price for Putin’s aggression, and it is testament to their grit, determination and courage that they have mounted such a heroic defence of their country. The UK has stood with Ukraine since day one, and I can confirm to the House that yesterday the Defence Secretary travelled to Kyiv to meet his Ukrainian counterpart, Defence Minister Umerov, to discuss a joint plan for 2025 and to underline the UK’s commitment to support Ukraine for as long as it takes.

It may be useful for the House if I provide an operational update. According to our latest Defence Intelligence insights, the frontline remains unstable. Russian forces continue to conduct attacks and advances at several locations along the front in eastern Ukraine, and have made accelerating gains in recent months in central Donetsk oblast. The conflict is currently classed as attritional, and it is brutal. It is also appropriate for me to confirm to the House that North Korean troops are currently engaged in offensive combat operations in Russia’s Kursk oblast, where around 11,000 DPRK—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—troops have been deployed. Our assessment is that it is highly likely they have sustained significant combat casualties, while achieving only limited tactical gains. Our assessments further indicate there have been over 750,000 Russian casualties since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, with the grim milestone of 1 million Russians dead and wounded likely to be reached within approximately six months.

This Government are clear that the frontline of British and European security runs through Ukraine. Our support for the Ukrainian people is iron-clad. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, one of the strengths of the UK approach under successive Governments has been the significant cross-party support from all parties in this House. That characterised our period in opposition, and it has continued while we have been in government, and I am grateful to the Conservative party and, indeed, all parties in this House for their continuing support for Ukraine.

In total, the UK has now provided £12.8 billion of assistance to Ukraine, and we remain a leading donor of military equipment. The Prime Minister has committed in person to President Zelensky that the UK will give £3 billion of military aid each year for as long as Ukraine needs. The year 2025 will be a critical one for the war. President Zelensky has laid out his victory plan, built around timely and effective military support, security guarantees, long-term deterrence and rebuilding Ukraine by unleashing the country’s economic potential, and he has spoken of his desire to secure a just peace from a position of strength.

Today, I would like to outline to the House how we will step up the UK’s international leadership on Ukraine into 2025, including a new £225 million package of military support—while in Kyiv, the Defence Secretary pledged that and confirmed it in his meeting with Defence Minister Umerov—and our five priority areas for UK defence support in 2025.

First, we will further increase and strengthen Ukraine’s military capabilities. Our new £225 million package of military support includes £186 million of key military equipment through the UK-administered international fund for Ukraine, with £92 million to bolster the Ukrainian navy’s fighting power, including advanced reconnaissance drones, the latest generation of uncrewed surface vessels, loitering munitions and mine countermeasure drones. The package also includes £68 million for air defence equipment, including new radars, decoy land equipment and cutting-edge counter-drone electronic warfare systems, as well as £26 million to provide support and spare parts for previously delivered critical military systems to keep them in the fight. Our stepped-up military support package includes £39 million to deliver 1,000 counter-drone electronic warfare systems, together with respirators and equipment to protect Ukrainian frontline forces. We are also gifting explosive charges to equip more than 90,000 155 mm artillery rounds, compatible with the dozens of British Army AS-90 self-propelled artillery guns previously provided by the United Kingdom.

Ukraine’s frontline is also the frontline of our security. I know the whole House will recognise that this latest military support package is firmly in the UK’s national security interests and that it will strengthen the resilience of our own defence industrial base, too. Yesterday, the House passed, with total cross-party support, the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill. This allows the Government to fulfil our commitment to provide Ukraine with an additional £2.26 billion through our contribution to the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loan scheme, which will be repaid using the profits from the immobilised Russian sovereign assets, enabling Ukraine to buy military equipment to defend itself and its freedom against Russian aggression. Taken together, this represents the highest amount of UK military support since the war began.

Secondly, we will continue training Ukraine’s armed forces throughout 2025, adding to the 51,000 Ukrainian troops already trained here in the United Kingdom as part of Operation Interflex, the multinational training programme we deliver alongside 12 partner nations. Having met Royal Air Force-trained Ukrainian pilots at Operation Interstorm and Ukrainian soldiers trained by the British Army and our partners in trenches dug in the English countryside, I know at first hand the difference our training makes. Each person we train—each Ukrainian we train—is a message to Putin that Ukraine does not stand alone. We will continue to provide the training that Ukraine needs and be flexible to meet its requirements.

Thirdly, we will build the defence sector in Ukraine, the UK and across Europe to leave Putin in no doubt but that Ukraine is not alone in this fight and that there is the ability to sustain Ukraine in the fight. In the autumn, I accompanied UK defence companies on a trade mission to Kyiv to discuss opportunities for the long-term co-operation that can reinforce Ukraine’s defence industry as a powerful deterrent against Russia and a powerful asset for Euro-Atlantic security. This Government are also delivering on the defence industrial support treaty signed with Ukraine in July, and we have made £3.5 billion of export finance available to buy military capabilities. We look forward to finalising a series of mutually agreed projects that will simultaneously bolster Ukraine’s defences and the UK’s defence industrial resilience in due course.

Fourthly, we will continue to work with allies to step up international support. Let me again be clear with the House that this Government will work with Ukraine to progress down its irreversible path towards NATO membership. We are working with the Ukraine defence contact group as well as allies further afield to increase the tempo of support and impose further costs on Russia. I can confirm that there will be a notable gear shift in January, when we commence delivery of tens of thousands of drones through the maritime and drone capability coalitions that the UK is leading with our Norwegian and Latvian partners.

Fifthly, we will reinforce the cross-Government effort to increase pressure on Russia, including close working between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to increase diplomatic pressure and sanctions. The MOD is working hand in glove with the FCDO through our recently formed joint unit on Ukraine to maximise the impact of UK defence support by starving the Kremlin of the resources it needs to sustain its war effort. We will continue to co-ordinate these sanctions with like-minded allies around the world to deny Russia’s war machine the goods, technologies and revenues it needs to sustain its illegal war, and we will continue to expose Russia’s malicious cyber-attacks and disinformation efforts, and the hostile operations of its intelligence services.

As we prepare to return to our constituencies to see our loved ones over Christmas, I know the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those Ukrainians unable to do so. Many are facing a Christmas and a new year of ongoing assault and aerial bombardment of their frontline, their homes, their towns, their cities and their critical energy infrastructure. So 2025 is set to be a critical year in the conflict and our resolve will not falter. President Zelensky has spoken of his desire for a just peace, and the Government are in no doubt that a just and lasting peace is only achievable by strengthening Ukraine’s hand. That is why this week the Defence Secretary in Kyiv, and I as the Minister at the Dispatch Box, have set out how we will increase Ukraine’s military capabilities, how we are committed to training thousands more Ukrainian troops, how we will strengthen defence industrial co-operation, how we will harness the support of Ukraine’s allies, and how we will increase pressure on Russia. This is the surest route to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the Minister, let me say that, Mr Darling, I can see that you are bobbing, and if you stay in the Chamber, I will make sure to call you at an appropriate time.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his party’s continuing support for our friends in Ukraine. He is certainly right that the initial provision of anti-tank weapons made a significant contribution in the early days, and the provision of a whole array of capabilities in every month since enables Ukraine to stay in the fight, which is absolutely essential. Today’s statement updates the House on the additional military capabilities that we are providing to Ukraine, and on how we will continue to do that.

The Defence Secretary has already announced that we will extend Operation Interflex until the end of 2025. That is good news. We have always been clear that we will flex the provision of Interflex training to suit the needs of our Ukrainian friends. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there was initial skills training, and we now train different skills, and that training is delivered differently. As the Defence Secretary has said, we will need to make the training a better fit for what the Ukrainians need. We need to make it easier for the Ukrainians to access it, and we work with the Ukrainians to help and motivate them to mobilise more recruits. The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not help Putin by revealing our plans, and any conversations that we may have with our Ukrainian friends, but we will update the House in due course.

The international fund for Ukraine is a really important part of the mix. I can get the right hon. Gentleman the full details on that, and about our share, and I will place that in the Library of the House. I also place on record our wider support for all our international colleagues who are contributing to that fund.

The chemical weapons assessment has a high classification, and the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not go into the full detail of Russian capabilities and any use, but the provision of respirators is a really important part of ensuring that Ukraine’s frontline troops are better able to defend themselves.

We have a plan to replenish our stocks; it will come alongside the defence industrial strategy. That intent was published by the Defence Secretary a few weeks ago, and that will be part of the strategic defence review. The mantra that the SDR will be published in the first half of next year is not, I am afraid, new; it is the existing Government position. However, I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the intent is to publish it in the spring. Work continues on that, and I am grateful to Lord Robertson and his review team for the thorough work that they are doing. The aim is to make sure that the review is not just Labour’s defence review, but is a defence posture that is supported cross-party, so that we can ensure that our national security is strong, and so that we can deter aggression and defeat it if necessary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Defence.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the diligent Minister for advance sight of his statement. It was good to chat with the Secretary of State on his return from Ukraine, and I welcome his pledge, while there, of a £225 million package of support for Ukraine, because as the Minister rightly highlights, Ukraine’s frontline is the frontline of our own security. Can the Minister provide further detail, however? After the UN Secretary-General’s statements last week about turbocharging defence, can the Minister provide further details of discussions with NATO and other allies, in particular our US friends, including recent discussions between the Prime Minister and President-elect Trump, on the international defence steps being taken at this critical juncture?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support for the military package outlined today. The UK Government will increase defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP, and a path for that increase will be laid out in due course at future fiscal events. We will publish the strategic defence review, which will set out, perhaps more importantly, what we seek to spend any money on; we can then look at what capabilities we need to develop and how that takes us further. We continue to speak with our NATO allies through the SDR process, to make sure that the UK’s defence offer is a “NATO first” offer that allows more interoperability and supports our NATO allies, especially on NATO’s eastern flank. I look forward to being able to speak more about that in due course to my hon. Friend’s Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

Thank you—[Interruption.] Sorry, I was just trying not to step on the right hon. Jennie. It is absolutely right that we give our brave Ukrainian allies the support that they need to resist Putin’s war machine. I am proud of how our country has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in defence of freedom and democracy, yet with the looming threat of a Trump presidency, America’s ongoing commitment to Ukraine looks increasingly uncertain. It should serve as a wake-up call to us all. If the United States pulls back its support, Europe must step up.

The Liberal Democrats want to see the UK take a lead within Europe. That must begin with concrete action, such as seizing frozen Russian assets to bolster Ukraine’s defences, as I and others spoke about in this House just yesterday, and reversing damaging Conservative cuts to our armed forces. Those steps will strengthen Ukraine’s hand and Britain’s security. Robust financial and humanitarian assistance is also vital. Just a few weeks ago, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs, Defence and Home Office spokespeople met a delegation of Ukrainian MPs, who stressed the urgent need for ongoing tangible support. Their message was clear: Europe’s role has never been more important. The Liberal Democrats stand firmly behind these measures.

The impending Trump presidency puts the safety of Ukraine and Europe in doubt. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the UK to take a lead within Europe on defence and security, and will he commit to working with his European counterparts to make sure that Ukraine is supported fully? The Minister also mentioned Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s energy network. Can he outline what work the Government are doing to support Ukraine in getting electricity generators and solar panels installed across the country to keep it functioning?

[Luke Pollard]

If we are seeking to protect anyone in this House, it will certainly be the right hon. Jennie. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. It is right that we seek to further strengthen sanctions against Russia. The Government have made a number of further developments, such as sanctioning the Russian shadow fleet, seeking to cut off its oil flow. As the Bill set out yesterday, we are taking further steps in legislation on frozen Russian assets. We will continue to support our armed forces. The strategic defence review will set out the future shape of the armed forces, and the path to 2.5% will be laid out by Treasury colleagues in due course.

This is a cross-Government approach. The hon. Gentleman’s final question about energy infrastructure is profound, and it allows me to echo the words from our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who have provided additional support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and energy production. It is vital that we continue that support, because it is not just with missiles and ammunition that we need to support Ukraine. We need all the support to keep that country going, to keep it in the fight, and to enable its people to get through a tough winter.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I once again commend my hon. Friend on his ongoing support for Ukraine and his important trade visit to Kyiv recently. From that visit, he will know that this war has advanced military technology, particularly in the area of loitering munitions and anti-unmanned aerial vehicle technology. I note that we have the defence industrial support treaty, as well as our own defence industrial strategy. What progress are we making on joint ventures with Ukrainian defence companies, and on basing some of that defence capability here, for our future security and the security of Ukraine?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in support of Ukraine. He is a consistent champion, working cross-party, too. It is right that we seek to improve and grow our technology, especially around drones and in autonomy. The treaty we signed with Ukraine enables it effectively to use Defence Equipment and Support as its own procurement agency to initiate more contracts, more quickly, not only enabling support for Ukrainian industry, but allowing UK industry to work with it to deploy more capabilities faster. He is absolutely right that the pace of change in Ukraine means that we need to continue to invest in research and development, and to learn the lessons. That is one reason why the Defence Secretary made the announcement about retiring the British Army’s Watchkeeper system—a 14-year-old drone—in favour of more modern systems that we hope to be able to announce in the SDR.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

This is a great opportunity for me to wish the Father of the House a happy Christmas.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When Russia cruelly invaded Finland in 1940, she not only took territory with force majeure, but imposed neutrality on that country for 50 years. There was a phrase for it: Finlandisation. I know our influence is not overwhelming, but when it comes to the Trump presidency, will the Minister assure me that the Government will stiffen the sinews of the Trump presidency and ensure that there is absolutely no question of any war aim of Russia’s being achieved, namely taking territory and neutralising Ukraine? We therefore must fast-track NATO membership.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the Father of the House for his question. He is right that we need to continue our support. That is why—from this Dispatch Box today and in Government statements since we came to office—we have made it clear that we will support Ukrainians for as long as it takes, including on their irreversible path to NATO membership. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the policies of the new US Administration, but it is certainly true that the safety of the United States, as well as the safety of the United Kingdom, relies on Putin not winning in Ukraine. That is why we are continuing our support for our Ukrainian friends. When the new Administration takes office, further such discussions will be able to take place directly.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

May I just say how strongly I welcome the statement? Our commitment across this House to defend Ukraine must be firm. Does the Minister agree that the cross-party nature of the UK support has been and will remain a critical feature of our support for Ukraine as a staunch ally?

[Luke Pollard]

The way that this House has come together on Ukraine—not just the provision of military equipment, but our diplomatic efforts and our support for Ukrainians—is a testament to all parties in this House. We are making sure that we are putting our national security and that of our friends ahead of any partisan desires. I expect that the Government and every single party in the House will continue that, because gaps in our position are where Putin will seek to prosper. That is why maintaining cross-party support is essential for our overall UK approach. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for continuing that today.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s confirmation of the Government’s support for Ukraine’s eventual membership of NATO. As a step along that road, will he look at the UK taking a lead in further integrating Ukraine into the joint expeditionary force?

[Luke Pollard]

The joint expeditionary force is an important part of the complementary military alliance with NATO, enabling the beer-drinking nations of northern Europe, as they are often described, to come together. It is important that that geographical centre point in northern Europe is maintained, especially in the Baltic sea and the high north. However, there are discussions around learning lessons by Ukraine having more participation alongside JEF nations. It is certainly true that many of the JEF nations have been the most forward-leaning of all our NATO allies in providing support for Ukraine, and I expect that to continue.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, and I urge him onwards. I rise to demonstrate my support for the stand we are taking in supporting Ukraine. My thoughts are with the people of Ukraine, who are entering their third Christmas in this conflict. Europe has learned the harsh lessons from dealing with dictators in the past. Does he agree that at a time when there is potential for change in America’s policy towards Ukraine, Europe needs to stand together, and to make sure that we do not allow Putin to succeed in any way, because the consequences of that for future generations could be damaging indeed?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that this Government will continue to support Ukraine, and to encourage more of our NATO allies to donate to Ukraine and to improve their own defences, so that we act as a deterrent, and so that the experience of Ukraine is not inflicted on any other NATO members. I hope that more Ukrainian people will hear the Christmas message of peace and hope as we go into next year, but it will be a very tough Christmas and new year for many of them. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no change in UK support for Ukraine, whatever happens over the coming year. We will continue to work closely with our European and NATO allies to make sure that what we are providing to Ukraine, including in training and support, will enable them to stay in the fight and be in the best possible position for the future.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

We have seen the proliferation of drone warfare in Ukraine as never before. I was struck by how the Minister referred to drones repeatedly in his statement; it is a massive change in how war is waged. With a Trump presidency on the horizon, Europe needs to look to itself and for its strengths. One of our strengths is the automobile industry and component parts, which can easily be repurposed for the development of drones for the war in Ukraine. Will the Minister advise us on how he is working with European colleagues to enhance that to support Ukraine to the hilt?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my fellow Devon MP for his support for Ukraine. It is certainly right that the increased proliferation of drones is a hallmark of the conflict. Between 500 and 1,000 drones—a substantial number—are used every day on the frontline, and they are being used in an incredibly intense environment of electronic warfare and jamming. That is why we need to continue to iterate and evolve in the support we provide to Ukraine, making sure that those drones can fly through EW jamming, reach their targets and project power in those areas.

We are continuing to strengthen support for developments not only in Ukrainian drone production, but in the production of drones across the rest of Europe. That is why we work so closely with the drone capability coalition among our European partners, to create that enhanced industrial base as well as learn the lessons of what technology is working, bearing in mind that that iteration on the frontline means that we need to keep adapting and enhancing our drone offer to Ukraine every few months.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and the team, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As other hon. Members have done, I commend the Minister for the statement, and especially the funding announcements made today. I thank him for reminding my constituents and all our constituents of the urgent need to support Ukraine and for reminding us that our national security is very much bound up in Ukraine’s national security. It is fantastic that this new money has been announced. Do the Government have a further update on the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club and the £2.5 billion? I am sure that the Minister will agree that the sooner we can get that money unlocked, the more military and humanitarian support we can unleash.

[Luke Pollard]

The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as soon as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account until a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money. Officials continue to hold discussions with Mr Abramovich’s representatives, experts and international partners, and they will double down on efforts to reach a solution. We are fighting every inch of the way to ensure that money from Russian assets goes straight back to supporting Ukrainians.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I also welcome the new funding for Ukraine today and the Minister’s statement. With an unstable Government in France, new elections in Germany, foreign influence operations in the recent Romanian presidential election and a new Administration in the United States, what recent discussions has the Minister had with NATO colleagues about how NATO will continue to support Ukraine to the very end, to steel its resolve and work towards the just peace that he referenced?

Briefly, on other NATO members, the Minister will know that Denmark’s policy on defence for Ukraine is to allow Ukraine to grow its own industrial base. That is being supported by Norway and some other Baltic countries. I get the transparency point and support the Government on that, but, to come back to an earlier question, is there any potential of joint ventures to allow Ukraine to grow its own industrial base?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that in a period of more instability on a political level, our NATO allies value the United Kingdom’s certainty and stability. For that reason, we are pushing forward on our efforts to co-ordinate more NATO activity. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that NATO has stood up a number of additional capabilities, especially in supporting the training functions that Ukraine desperately needs, and we are supporting those efforts wholeheartedly.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the Ukrainian objectives is to create more joint ventures to develop and iterate technologies, especially missiles and drone technology. That has the support of the UK Government, so we have been supporting our Ukrainian friends to do so not only in-country, but with UK industry at the same time. How we do that is being worked through. The new treaty that we signed is really beneficial in enabling some of that work to take place. It is certainly true, though, that to keep Ukraine in the fight, we not only need NATO allies to provide more resources, but we need to create the environment in which Ukraine can develop more of its resources in-country to be used on the frontline.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement, which demonstrates again the ironclad commitment of this country to the defence of Ukraine. Ministers will have detected nervousness across the House regarding political changes in January, so may I change tack? There are 6 million Ukrainian refugees across Europe and millions of displaced people within the country itself. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to communities across the United Kingdom who have supported the Ukrainian people, and indeed in many cases opened their homes to Ukrainians coming to this country?

[Luke Pollard]

I join my hon. Friend in thanking all those families across the country—those in his constituency, those of everyone here, and those in Plymouth—who have supported the Homes for Ukraine scheme and those Ukrainians getting to safety. As of 16 December, 218,600 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK, including just under 160,000 via the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Our new Ukraine permission extension scheme will open on 4 February 2025, as announced at the end of October. That will provide an additional 18-month permission, and access to the same rights and entitlements as the current Ukraine schemes. It is really important that as well as lending support to Ukrainians in Ukraine, we support those Ukrainians in the United Kingdom. I thank all the people who are working so hard in particular to ensure support for those families in the United Kingdom today.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Could we be completely realistic? The outcome of the conflict is likely to be determined by President Trump and what he chooses to do. Therefore, it is essential that the British Government engage as positively as possible with President Trump and resist the temptation that somehow his arrival is an invitation for we Europeans to withdraw into ourselves, with our limited defence capability, our diverse political and foreign policy objectives and varying degrees of willpower to sustain the effort. Can we take the arrival of President Trump as an opportunity to leverage change in whatever field, never underestimating how much the United Kingdom has to offer the United States and how joined up and integrated so many of our defence capabilities are?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

It is absolutely true that, as the United Kingdom has provided a bridge across the Atlantic between the United States and Europe in the past, we continue to do so today. We will need to work closely with our NATO allies, including the United States, with which we have a very close and deep security relationship. That is the case whoever is in the White House. We look forward to beginning more of those discussions with the Administration once the US legal period that stops international discussions expires at the point of inauguration.

I dispute just one aspect of the hon. Gentleman’s question. This war could come to an end because of Putin. He could decide to withdraw his troops. He could decide to stop inflicting pain on the Ukrainian people. He could choose to end the war today. That is why we must continue to support Ukraine for as long as it takes, so it can get the peace and security that its people so desperately need.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I welcome the latest British military support for Ukraine. I welcome that there is cross-party support in the House and that the civilised world stands united with Ukraine; long may that continue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important voices regarding this illegal invasion and how to end it are not ours or those of our allies but those of President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people at home and abroad, including in constituencies such as mine? The Ukrainian people have suffered so much due to Russian aggression, and their fortitude and bravery is an inspiration to all of us who value freedom and democracy.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is certainly right that the courage, grit and determination of the Ukrainian people is something we should be enormously proud of. It is for that reason that we continue to support them, because their fight is our fight. He is also right that the decision on the future of Ukraine is not for the United Kingdom, but for the Ukrainian people and Government. It is for the Ukrainian Government to decide their future and their objectives in the coming year. It is our job to help to strengthen Ukrainian hands so that they are in the best possible position for any outcome in 2025. That is what this statement and the additional military equipment we have announced today seek to do.

I know the cross-party support from this House is felt in Kyiv. I also know that videos of this House showing the United Kingdom’s support for their fight are shared on the frontline among Ukrainian soldiers. Although I am not sure that every video of this place is precisely what Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline need, what they can take from today’s debate is our cross-party support for keeping them in the fight for as long as it takes for them to secure victory and peace for their people.

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

We on the SNP Benches stand united in that cross-party support for Ukraine and welcome the package that has been brought forward today. I have a few specific questions for the Minister. First, he talked about the profits that have come from the frozen assets. What discussions has he had with EU counterparts on that? Some have been quite vocal about the sale of those assets, which could rapidly accelerate the strength of the Ukrainian forces.

Secondly, on sanctions, more than 50% of the components of Russian drones come directly from China. There are negotiations next month between the Minister’s own Government and China on increasing economic co-operation. More specifically, we have a loophole in the law just now that allows British shipping and shipping insurers to work outside the UK to deliver gas from Siberia to other parts of the world, which aids and abets Putin in his war of aggression against Ukraine. I would like an update on those things.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support for Ukraine and for the united front this House has presented and continues to present for Ukraine. Discussions with our European friends on frozen assets are a matter for the Treasury, but I know that Treasury colleagues are continuing conversations to ensure that when the United Kingdom makes a move on particular areas of sanctions or assets, it is replicated by our friends. Indeed, the sanctions we have implemented on Russia’s shadow fleet have been replicated by a huge number of our European and other international allies, to ensure that there is no place for that trade. I am concerned by what the hon. Gentleman says, but I know that the Treasury has been working further with the Foreign Office on how we can strengthen sanctions. However, I am very happy for him to write to me with further details on that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned technology coming from further afield. It is not just technology developed in Asia that we need to worry about; we also need to worry about technology developed in Iran, which goes directly to the frontline and is used by Russian forces to target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. That is why we continue to take action against Iranian weapon transfers to Ukraine, too.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the Minister’s statement. It is incredibly welcome to hear that we still fully support the people of Ukraine and will back them financially for as long as it takes. I have two questions for the Minister. First, he mentioned the 11,000 North Korean troops in the Kursk region. He said that they had made little progress—that they had had a few tactical victories, but that it had come at great cost to them. How did he arrive at that assessment, and does he expect North Korean troops to contribute more in the conflict?

Secondly, I increasingly find myself in debates with people who ask why Britain is spending this money in Ukraine—why is it not being spent in Britain? I use the argument that many in this House will be familiar with: when people like Vladimir Putin are given what they want, they always come back for more, whether there is a deal or not. Will the Minister restate at the Dispatch Box why it is in Britain’s direct national interest to ensure that the people of Ukraine win this conflict?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. It is certainly true that the assessment we have made of troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea engaging in combat is a concerning development. It is a dangerous escalation and expansion of Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine, and is further proof that he has no interest in peace. We will continue to monitor what takes place there. My hon. Friend will understand if I do not go into the precise collection methods as to how we came to that assessment, but it is certainly a sign of further Russian weakness that it needs to rely on North Korean troops in the operations it is undertaking in Kursk oblast.

Secondly, on why this matters, I would pose a question that is always useful when thinking about this conflict: do we think Putin would stop if he won in Ukraine? I think we all know the answer. His illegal war would continue against the Ukrainian people, as would his threats against NATO allies, especially those on NATO’s eastern flank. His malign influence would continue to extend to subversion of democracies through attacks on critical infrastructure and cyber-attacks on NATO allies, including the United Kingdom. That is why we have cross-party unity in our support for Ukraine: Ukraine’s security is the United Kingdom’s security.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed the nature of warfare in the 21st century. We are now a generation away from the operations I conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even the conventional warfare I trained for throughout my time in the infantry only a decade or so ago. We have seen how the use of drones has revolutionised the battle space in Ukraine—by that, I very much mean the handheld disposable end of the spectrum, rather than a platform like Watchkeeper—with the pace of their development necessitating a more agile approach to procurement and development. Given that the conflict has evolved over just 1,000 days to be unrecognisable from its initial phases, to what extent are we ensuring that the forthcoming strategic defence review keeps pace with the rapidly evolving nature of aspects of contemporary warfare?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his service to our country. He is right that we are seeing huge changes in the way that war is conducted in Ukraine, but we are also seeing developments in how technology and different skills can be brought together. A few years ago, I am not sure that many in uniform would have welcomed the suggestion that playing on a PlayStation could train people for military combat, yet we do now see gamers in Ukraine applying their skills to flying first-person view drones through difficult scenarios on the frontline in support of their freedom. It is precisely those lessons that the SDR is seeking to capture. We are using not just lessons from the war in Ukraine, but experience with Russian malign influence elsewhere around the world to inform the SDR. My hon. Friend sitting next to me on the Front Bench, the Minister for Veterans and People, feels—how shall I put it?—incredibly strongly about drones, and I am absolutely certain that the SDR will include a greater role for not only drones warfare but training around drones and modern warfare, as well as a greater role for autonomy in all domains.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the announcement on our ongoing military support. It is critically important that those who wage Putin’s illegal war face the legal consequences for their actions. With that in mind, will the Minister set out the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian domestic legal system to ensure that these cases are prosecuted in their own courts?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. The horrendous activities of the Russian forces in Ukraine should be subject to the fullest extent of not only domestic but international law. The previous Government and this Government have provided not only military and economic support, but legal support. We are supporting the international effort to seek to prosecute not only Putin, but all those who have perpetrated hideous crimes against the Ukrainian people, especially Ukrainian civilians. The effort is ongoing, and I encourage him to table some written questions to the Attorney General’s office, which might be able to provide a more thorough update.

I can assure him that our support for Ukraine extends across the whole of Government and that we will continue to pursue all those responsible for crimes in Ukraine, up to and including the President of Russia. We need to be absolutely clear that this illegal, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine carries consequences. If we do not, and it carries no consequences, it will be a green light for other dictators around the world to seek to change their borders and to attack people simply because they want to. That is not acceptable in an international rules-based system. We must uphold the law. That is why the UK effort, from people in uniform and civilians who support our armed forces, as well as the lawyers seeking to prosecute those crimes, is so essential for the long-term peace and security of Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his statement; there is nobody in this House who does not support what he has said today. It encourages us as MPs and it encourages my constituents, so we thank him very much for his commitment.

Hailing from a nation that has had to have the most highly trained police in the world, I personally know of multiple ex-Royal Ulster Constabulary and ex-military personnel who were stationed in Northern Ireland who train other military forces and police forces across the world. It is right and proper that our forces are able to help our allies—indeed, they should help our allies. Will the Minister confirm that there is no intention for our forces to see direct action in Ukraine, and that our role is that of training, military provision and support?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, through him as a Northern Ireland MP, I thank all those families in Northern Ireland who have welcomed Ukrainians into their homes and continue to support them, and the industry in Northern Ireland that is supporting Ukraine. It is the position of the UK Government that we do not have and will not provide UK troops for combat roles in Ukraine. However, we will continue to support our Ukrainian friends through the provision of training and the military equipment they need to determine their future. The training in Operation Interflex will continue throughout the entirety of next year, and will continue to flex and adapt to the changing needs of the Ukrainian fight. It is certainly true that Ukraine needs more people on the frontline to deter the aggression, and our ability to improve and update our training offer, alongside our international partners, will be critical to keeping Ukraine in the fight in the months to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Saving the best Back-Bench contributor till last.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour and a novelty to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The cost of a new year’s dinner in Russia is up over 11%, interest rates are up, taxes are up and the rouble is down. That is largely down to the fact that the previous Government introduced a punitive range of sanctions against Russia. The famous military phrase is “in all domains” and the economic domain is absolutely critical. Can the Minister assure us that we will continue to ramp up economic pressure, as well as military pressure?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is absolutely right that in addition to military support we use all levers available to us as a Government to put pressure on Putin, the Kremlin and his illegal war, and that includes economic measures. It is certainly true that Russia is seeking to find ways to circumvent and evade some of the sanctions put in place not just by the United Kingdom, but by our international allies, too. It is for that reason that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Treasury are updating the sanctions on a regular basis, not only to expand them where we see a revenue stream from activity that directly supports the war, but to put further pressure on the Russian economic system so that staying in the fight becomes a harder and harder choice for them. Ultimately, the war needs to be brought to an end as soon as we can. Our levers, not only military but economic and diplomatic, are essential to being able to bring the pressure to bear on Putin to stop his illegal invasion, withdraw his troops and give all the people in Ukraine, who just wish to get on with their lives free from attack, abuse and intimidation by the Russian state, a decent future. Let us hope that 2025 brings a better year than 2024 was for our Ukrainian friends.

Service Accommodation

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is an honour to present the Defence Committee’s first report of this Parliament, which is on service accommodation.

As we approach Christmas, we would all hope that the brave servicepeople who put their lives on the line for our country would all have decent housing, where they could celebrate in the warmth, without fear that their living conditions would put their health or their families’ health at risk. However, that is not always true, as our report and other reports have found. What is more, there is not yet a robust funded plan to put the situation right.

Before I say more about the Committee’s findings, I want to put on record my immense gratitude to my fellow Committee members in reaching strong recommendations on a cross-party basis. I thank members of the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, including the now shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who took the evidence that informed this hard-hitting report. In particular, I thank Robert Courts, the former Member for Witney, who originally proposed and led the inquiry. I put on record my gratitude to the House of Commons staff whose hard work made the inquiry possible, especially Sarah Williams, who managed the inquiry with curiosity and care, from conception to report.

Our armed forces personnel dedicate their lives to protecting this nation, often at great personal sacrifice. Ensuring they have access to safe, comfortable and well-maintained accommodation is not just a matter of duty—it is a moral obligation. The Committee’s investigation has revealed a deeply concerning situation that has developed over many years. The condition of both service family accommodation and single living accommodation falls far below the standard our servicemen and women deserve.

We have found instances of dilapidated housing, inadequate maintenance and unacceptable living conditions, including some truly appalling persistent problems with damp and mould; cases of total loss of heating, hot water and cooking facilities for months in winter; flooding; and rodent infestations. Such substandard living conditions directly affect the morale and operational readiness of our armed forces. They are also a significant challenge to recruitment and retention.

Our report highlights systemic failures in the management and maintenance of service accommodation. The current system is plagued by lack of clear accountability and has reached a point of crisis, following insufficient funding over decades. Satisfaction with service accommodation is very low. That is hardly surprising given that a third of single living accommodation and two thirds of service family accommodation are in such poor condition that they are essentially no longer fit for purpose.

The Committee has put forward several key recommendations to start to address this situation. We call for detailed funded investment plans for service accommodation, which are crucial to address the backlog of repairs and to bring the housing stock up to acceptable modern standards. Such plans are also crucial to enable effective planning for how best to manage the interim situation in which so much defence housing remains substandard.

For all accommodation maintained under contract, we call for the Ministry of Defence to review the assurance processes and performance measures for those contracts as part of a plan to improve the management of accommodation. There needs to be much more focus on the satisfaction of servicepeople and their families. That must include making sure that complaints processes are accessible and fit for purpose. Better communication with servicepeople and their families is absolutely key, alongside better delivery of real improvements that people value.

The Committee also examined recent developments relating to the allocation of family accommodation—namely, the botched mismanaged nature of it. Both the proposed changes and the subsequent pause in their implementation have caused significant uncertainty for service personnel and their families. The situation underscores the need for clear, consistent communication and highlights the importance of thorough consultation with those affected by such changes.

I want to emphasise that this is not about apportioning blame but about recognising a shared responsibility across Governments, over many years, to do better for those who serve our country. However, it is now for the current Government to put things right. The challenges are considerable and require a meaningful plan of investment and effective delivery and communication.

I warmly welcome the announcement on Tuesday that the Government are buying back the service family accommodation portfolio. The decision back in 1996 to sell the portfolio was a major mistake and was compounded by the terms of the deal, which has been described by the Public Accounts Committee as “disastrous”. It left the public purse billions of pounds worse off and the Government responsible for maintaining and upgrading an estate that was, in effect, owned by somebody else. That is why the situation was a nettle that needed to be grasped.

Buying back the portfolio is the right decision and has the potential to be a real game changer. However, essential though that is, the buy-back will not, in itself, directly improve things for servicepeople and their families right now. Along with my colleagues on the Defence Committee, I will be looking closely at the plan that follows and how it is funded and delivered. I commend the report to the House.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I put on record this Government’s support for the report that my hon. Friend has just published. The state of military housing is not good enough. Too many of our military families are living in poor-quality accommodation, and that is precisely why the Government seek to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. That is why we are bringing Annington homes back into public ownership. That will save the taxpayer £600,000 a day, which is money that can be used to better support our service families. I am grateful to hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for his work in support of the deal.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this decisive break from a failed past is just our first chance to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve? I hope he will keep the Government honest on our commitments to improve service life and accommodation. Through the work we are legislating for with the Armed Forces Commissioner, I hope his Committee will be able to support and provide ongoing scrutiny of service family accommodation, because decent housing is the least that all our armed forces and their families deserve. This Government are intent on delivering on that.

[Mr Dhesi]

I welcome the Minister’s comments and, indeed, we will be supporting and scrutinising the work of Government. We look forward to working with the Armed Forces Commissioner as and when they are appointed. As I intimated earlier, Tuesday’s announcement is very welcome, but there is a great deal of work for the Minister and his colleagues to do. The proof will be in the planning and the delivery.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I have four quick responses. First, it is good to know that there is a journalist watching or listening to these proceedings. I wish her all the best with the article she will no doubt follow this debate with. Secondly, being artful and cheeky are compliments on both sides of this divide, so I think we can take those as benefits.

Turning to the substantive points, the first is on placing a specific category of general welfare matter on the face of the Bill. It will not surprise the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that I say it should be for the commissioner to decide which matters they consider to be a general service welfare matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned, it is quite possible that there will be people who feel strongly about childcare, others about the state of their housing, and others still about a range of service matters. It is for the Government to set up the powers of the commissioner so they can make a decision free from the influence of Ministers on what that should be.

The right hon. Gentleman will understand if I resist the temptation to specify one measure in the Bill and not others. The danger of trying to have an exhaustive list is that there will always be matters excluded from it, no matter how declaratory or helpful is the intention of putting certain measures on the face of the Bill. I assure the shadow Minister that pensions, which are of course extremely important, are not excluded from the scope of the commissioner. If they are considered to be a general service welfare issue, pensions can already be investigated without having to specify them on the face of the Bill. I hope he understands that his amendment is unnecessary to achieve that.

On the second issue the shadow Minister raised, he is, I hope, familiar with the answer to his written question given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People, who replied:

“Inheritance tax on pensions is subject to a technical consultation which runs between 30 October 2024 and 22 January 2025. The Ministry of Defence will follow legislation as per Government proposals.”

I commend the shadow Minister for raising an issue like this, but he will understand that a proper consultation by the Treasury and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is under way, and it is for them to undertake that. He has placed the issue on record here and separately, in his written question to my ministerial colleague. I encourage him to share the experiences he has raised with my ministerial colleague who looks after armed forces pensions, so he can look further into that. I entirely commend him for his artful cheekiness in raising it in this Committee.

These are precisely the issues that the commissioner should have the power to investigate and, based on the Bill in front of us, will have the power to investigate, but I do not think it is for any one of us to specify which issues, because that constrains the independence of the commissioner. We spent this morning talking about the importance of reinforcing the independence of the commissioner. This afternoon, we should continue that argument and not seek to direct the commissioner through a declaratory addition to the Bill about one area. The commissioner will be able to look at pensions as a general service welfare matter, as they see fit. I suspect, given the shadow Minister’s energy, that he will seek to raise the issue further.

Regarding pensions, there is already a set procedure that allows current service personnel veterans to raise complaints through a process called the internal disputes resolution procedure. These cases are assessed by discretionary decision makers within the Defence Business Services authority, and if people are unhappy, they can appeal these decisions to the Pensions Ombudsman. I recognise the shadow Minister’s strength of feeling on this. Notwithstanding his specific issue, which is worthy of being raised on the Floor of the House, I hope he will understand why I resist the idea of having a declaratory point about one particular area, as in his amendment. As such, I ask him to withdraw his amendment, but also to keep in contact with my ministerial colleague, who will be able to look into this matter in further detail.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for his compliment about my “artful cheekiness”. I am rather hoping that the Whip will have written that down. Again, quoting from Larisa Brown’s article,

“It is understood that inheritance tax would apply to service personnel who are killed while off duty, for example if they are driving to and from work.”

She also includes a comment from a spokesman from the Forces Pension Society, who said they believed it was an “unintended consequence”— we are trying to be fair to the Government—but added,

“For the military, death is an occupational risk, so we also believe this is a breach of the armed forces covenant, which says that service personnel should not be disadvantaged by virtue of their service.”

I understand what the Minister has said, and I know there is a technical consultation, but this is important not just to us and to the Forces Pension Society; it will genuinely concern armed forces personnel and their families.

[Luke Pollard]

I neglected to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne. If a member of the armed services dies, they are no longer able to access the commissioner because of their death. However, we are deliberately introducing secondary legislation that will define bereaved families to enable them to access the commissioner. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, in the circumstances that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is talking about, the families of those affected will still be able to raise an issue with the commissioner. The wording of that secondary legislation is being prepared by the Ministry of Defence and will be published in draft form as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I do not think that is a point for the Chair, but it has obviously been put on the record.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Clause 4 inserts proposed new sections 340IA, 340IB and 340LA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. Taken in order, these new sections enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter, to have powers of entry to certain Ministry of Defence sites, and to report and make recommendations in relation to their general service welfare investigations.

The commissioner will be in a unique position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our armed forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and therefore the public a range of issues faced by service personnel—whether that is accommodation or retention, pensions, as we have just debated, or childcare—and provide holistic recommendations. That can only be positive for service people and will provide greater transparency and accountability in defence.

Proposed new section 340IA, when inserted into the 2006 Act, will enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter. The intent of this section is to ensure a scope broad enough to capture issues that may have been brought to the commissioner’s attention through oversight of the service complaints system, but also issues that can be raised directly by service personnel and their families, provided it relates in some way to the serviceperson in question and their service.

Subsection (2) states that a general service welfare matter is any matter which might, in the opinion of the commissioner, materially affect the welfare of service personnel and their families where those issues have arisen as a result of the relevant service person’s ongoing service. Members of the Committee will be able to see that that gives a very broad interpretation power to the commissioner to be able to make a decision about what falls as a general service welfare matter. As such, specifying particular issues in the Bill is unnecessary. “Materially affect” is not defined, but its inclusion ensures that a matter must be sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation.

Subsection (3) requires the commissioner to consider a request from any person subject to service law, or a relevant family member, to carry out an investigation into a general service welfare matter. However, that does not preclude the commissioner from considering a request made by someone else if they wished to, provided it falls into the scope of a general service welfare matter.

Subsections (4) and (5) exclude certain matters that cannot be investigated under this section, but still allow the commissioner to investigate general service welfare issues that may have been brought to their attention in connection with a particular service complaint, service inquiry, criminal investigation or proceedings, or public inquiry. Additionally, any “specified” matter can be excluded from investigation by the commissioner. These matters can be set out in secondary legislation, but must relate to national security or the safety of any person.

Subsection (7) places a requirement on the Secretary of State to reasonably co-operate with, and give reasonable assistance to, the commissioner in relation to an investigation under this section. I touched on that earlier in relation to the concerns of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Secretary of State must also consider any findings or recommendations made by the commissioner in connection with an investigation under this section.

Subsection (8) sets out the definitions for this section, including that the definition of a “relevant family member” is to be set out in regulations. As I mentioned in response to questions from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would expect that to be set out during the course of the passage of the Bill. It would then go through the usual scrutiny process should Members wish to interrogate the provision further.

Proposed new section 340IB, “Power of Entry to Service Premises” will, when inserted into the Act, confer powers on the commissioner enabling them to enter certain Ministry of Defence sites in the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) specifies that the power of entry includes certain actions, including the ability to observe activities at those sites and to inspect and take copies of documentation. I direct the attention of the Committee to the important power the commissioner has of requesting information from the Secretary of State, so their ability to interrogate, scrutinise and understand general service welfare matters is not restricted only to what they can observe on a visit; they also have the information they can request from the MOD. It is worth restating at this point that the commissioner’s investigations must relate to a general service welfare matter. They cannot use the power of entry to access sites or information purely on a whim, or for their own interest.

Subsection (2) provides that copies of electronic documentation provided to the commissioner must be legible and in a form that can be taken away. Subsections (3) and (4) require that, prior to relying on their powers of entry, the commissioner should provide such notice to the Secretary of State as they consider appropriate. Where they consider that to provide such notice would defeat the object of their powers of entry, they may provide no notice at all, but only where their visit relates to services premises within the UK. For service premises outside the UK, the commissioner must give notice of the proposal to visit within such a period as the commissioner considers appropriate.

Subsection (5) permits the commissioner to be accompanied on visits by a person or bring anything of their choosing if required for the purposes of their investigation and obliges the commissioner to provide evidence of their identity should that be requested. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to prevent or restrict the commissioner’s powers of entry where they consider it necessary in the interests of national security or for the safety of any person. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a concern on Second Reading in relation to frontline operations. In that situation, just to reassure him, the Secretary of State would have the ability to prevent a visit to a frontline position. That would probably relate to the safety of any person, notwithstanding national security implications. To reassure him, that is something that would be taken into account when any overseas visits were made.

Subsection (7) sets out the instances when the commissioner may not exercise their powers. That includes where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to assume an item is subject to legal privilege. In addition, subsection (7) sets out that the commissioner cannot require an individual to do anything they could not be compelled to do by a civil court. Subsection (8) provides relevant definitions.

Proposed new section 340LA, on reports and recommendations into general service welfare investigations, will, when inserted into the Armed Forces Act, enable the commissioner to prepare reports setting out their findings and recommendations resulting from one of their general service welfare investigations. Subsection (2)(b) sets out that where a report is prepared, the commissioner must give it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable. Subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State must, on receiving the report, lay it before Parliament promptly, and in any event within 30 sitting days. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to exclude from any report any material where they consider that its publication would be against the interests of national security might jeopardise someone’s safety. Taken together, the powers and reports will provide Parliament with a much greater level of scrutiny of the issues facing our service personnel and their families.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important part of the Bill. If I may, I will respond quickly to a number of the points that have been raised. The shadow Minister mentioned the continuity of education allowance. It is important, and that is why the Secretary of State has uplifted it to include the VAT, where it has been charged additionally by a school—not all schools will charge the additional VAT, as that is a decision for them—and it will continue to be paid at 90% of the fees. We have addressed the concern raised with us by service personnel to continue that 90% level for CEA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said; it is very gracious of him. I do not think it is to betray a confidence to say that he and I have threatened to sit down and have a cup of coffee several times to talk about the accommodation issue, in particular. I thought I would take this opportunity to remind him of that—perhaps we can do that early in the new year.

[Luke Pollard]

I will check with my husband whether I am allowed a cheeky coffee date with the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Francois]

He has nothing to fear!

[Luke Pollard]

I will resist the temptation to comment. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman and I share a common view that the defence accommodation for our armed forces is not good enough. I raised the matter consistently in opposition, and he has done so as well. We need to get on top of it. My ministerial colleagues—the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry and the Minister for Veterans and People—are leading the work. Although a coffee would, of course, be lovely, I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman would be better having it with my ministerial colleagues, so that they can look at the detail of what he is saying.

It is important that we deal with those retention and recruitment issues, but I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who spoke about operations abroad and welfare at home being separate. The whole point of a general service welfare matter and the broad powers we are giving the commissioner is that the commissioner is able to investigate such matters in all circumstances. The only distinction is whether an unannounced visit can be delivered. I think all members of the Committee will understand that there is a difference between turning up to a UK facility and turning up to one abroad, especially with a number of defence facilities abroad being in locations where there are greater concerns around security. I think we all understand the distinction that we make there, and that is why welfare is a priority.

If I may correct the hon. Member for Spelthorne on one point, the Chancellor gave Defence an extra £2.9 billion in the recent Budget, not the £2.6 billion he mentioned. It is good to have a Government increase defence spending in their first Budget. If we roll back to 2010, the new Conservative Government cut defence spending in their first Budget, so we are going in the right direction.

On the substantive issue that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised about SEND, I say to him that that is precisely the type of issue that I would expect a commissioner, in due course, to look at as part of their thematic reviews, because we know it affects the welfare of our people and their families. The sequence in which issues are dealt with will be a matter for the commissioner, but I entirely support the right hon. Gentleman raising that as an issue, because it is important, just as housing, childcare and other issues raised by hon. Friends are important for our service personnel. Indeed, as in the case of a constituent raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, we know that welfare matters directly affect our deployability. If our people are not able to fulfil all their duties in service life because of the impact of their home life, that reduces our warfighting capabilities. That is why we are putting so much effort into general service welfare matters as a new Government.

I commend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for raising this issue. He is absolutely right that the state of SEND support across the country is not good enough. The Department for Education and the Education Secretary herself have made it very clear that it is a priority for the Government. We have made it a priority precisely because in every single community across the country, including the one I represent in Plymouth, people are unable to access SEND support for their children or to get an education, health and care plan in a timely manner. That is especially difficult for our armed forces personnel, where there is a movement between areas.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford will know that there has been a development in relation to education, health and care plans where a young person leaves England. An agreement has been made between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education that clarifies the powers and flexibilities to, importantly, maintain EHCPs in scenarios where children are temporarily absent from England—this is a devolved matter across the UK—but that does not get to the whole heart of what he is saying. That is why DFE is taking such important steps. It is also why the Ministry of Defence now has an armed forces family fund, which has been provided with £1.2 million to support service children with additional needs.

Let me say very clearly that all of us across Government need to do more to support families with SEND children and young people. That is why we have made the issue a priority, and I expect it to be one the commissioner will want to look at. If they do, I am certain the Ministry of Defence will be able to fully furnish them with information and provision, because we want them to shine a spotlight on issues where things are not right, so that we can improve them for our servicepeople.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister mentioned the devolved Administrations point, and that is encouraging. I gave an example of someone who moved from Tidworth garrison to Catterick garrison. Is it now the case that they could port their EHCP from Wiltshire to Yorkshire, as if they had got it from Yorkshire in the first place? Have we got to that stage yet or not?

[Luke Pollard]

I think the right hon. Gentleman and I have slightly different recollections of Tuesday’s discussion on this. I would like us to get to a point where armed forces families that move around the country are better able to be supported. The DFE is leading on a piece of work on education, health and care plans, and we know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is involved in that.

We need to make sure that the development of digital EHCPs and the requirement for common formats between English local authorities will assist in that direction of travel. That will reduce the time taken to convert plans between different local authority formats for mobile families, including those in defence. Additionally, live access plans will offer armed forces families greater empowerment and agency in the planning and management of their EHCPs.

The Ministry of Defence’s local authority partnership outlines a set of voluntary principles adopted by 19 local authorities, predominantly in strong defence areas. The principles enhance the existing provision for armed forces children in the SEND code of practice. This is an issue that we as a new Government are looking at on a cross-departmental basis. I expect us to make further announcements in due course about the details and changes we want to put in place. We recognise that EHCP provision and SEND provision across the country are not what they should be. We have inherited a really poor and concerning picture from the previous Administration, and we are seeking to get to the bottom of it and improve it.

[Mr Francois]

I take no umbrage at all at what the Minister said about Tuesday—Her late Majesty herself famously said that recollections may vary. I think the point has been made. Could he give the Committee one last commitment before we end the clause stand part debate? Could he assure us that when he gets back to the Department, he or one of his fellow Ministers will chase this up in a timely manner with his colleagues at the DFE, in the hope that we can secure the kind of progress he was intimating at, including on the IT front? It would be a shame if this very pressing issue was held up because of a software glitch between computer A and computer B in two different local authorities. Could he give us his word of honour, which we would take, that he will go back to the Department and press on this to try to get some good news in the new year?

[Luke Pollard]

Certainly, strides are being made right across Government to improve SEND provision. It is absolutely true that SEND provision is a shame on our nation. We have inherited a situation from the previous Government that is unacceptable for our young people and children. It is unacceptable for civilians and people in service life, and it is something that we seek to change.

I am happy to continue the conversations that the MOD is having with the DFE, in particular, to look at how we can support these provisions. However, in relation to the Bill, I would expect this to be an area that the commissioner could look at. When they are inviting representations—when their office is stood up—I suspect that service families and service personnel will be wanting and able to share their experiences of a system that is not working the way it should be. We are trying to put change in place, and I know that that position is shared on a cross-party basis. We have to do a lot better than the situation we have inherited, in order to support people, and young people with SEND.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Consequential amendments

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 2.

Clauses 6 to 8 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I turn first to clause 5 and schedule 2. Clause 5 sets out that the consequential amendments are contained in schedule 2. The schedule amends existing legislation to ensure that the abolition of the role of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the creation of the role of Armed Forces Commissioner are reflected across a range of provisions on the statute book. Members will be able to see those edits in the Bill, and most of them simply replace references to the Service Complaints Ombudsman with references to the Armed Forces Commissioner, with no practical policy change.

The changes to part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which covers service complaints, also serve to ensure that there is a clear distinction between references to existing investigations relating to service complaints and references to the new general service welfare investigations, which we spoke about earlier.

I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 17 of schedule 2, which amends the powers currently afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman to require information, documents and evidence necessary to conduct their service complaints investigations. The change ensures that the powers to request information also apply to the commissioner’s new powers of investigation into general service welfare matters. It is an important change, allowing the commissioner fully to investigate those issues. Similarly, the change in paragraph 18 ensures that, in respect of their new functions, the commissioner has the same enforcement mechanisms as are currently afforded to the ombudsman.

Clause 6 sets out the extent of the Bill. It does that through subsections (1) and (2), extending the Bill to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and to Scotland, except for the concept of the commissioner being a corporation sole, because Scots law does not have the concept of a corporation sole. Subsections (4) and (5) include a permissive extent provision, which enables the Bill’s provisions to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the British overseas territories—except Gibraltar—and the Isle of Man. The Bill does not contain a permissive extent provision for Gibraltar, as Gibraltar legislates for itself on the Armed Forces Act via the Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018, so it is not appropriate to include it in the Bill.

I have spoken to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been very welcoming of the Bill and has confirmed that he is content to continue to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on armed forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters. I thank the Chief Minister and his Government for that co-operation.

It is important that clause 6 be agreed to, as it sets out the legal jurisdictions in which the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will have legal effect. Clause 7 outlines the provisions that will come into force once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Except for the extent, commencement and short title clauses, the main provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make in regulations transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any of the Bill’s provisions.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Would it be possible for the Minister to provide clarification on how sensitive information will be handled? I imagine that, with these extra powers, the new commissioner will be able to take both physical and digital sensitive information. Does that indicate that there will be a need for a new secure physical facility to allow those documents to be stored and a new digital network to allow those digital files to be handled?

[Luke Pollard]

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly using his previous experience in the military to carefully scrutinise how this provision will work in practice. I am very happy to write to him about that. It would be set out in the implementation work that the Ministry of Defence is doing at the moment. However, we have a foundation in the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, which already handles much of that sensitive information, especially in cases relating to personnel and their issues, and I imagine that that work will carry on. The Armed Forces Commissioner is also subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and a whole array of other legislation that seeks to ensure the proper security of information. I am happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman on the detail of all that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

It occurs to me that, prior to taking the oath, there is a body of people who are prospective recruits. They have a material impact on morale, because if they take months and months to get through the pipeline to become recruits, the wastage rate increases and fewer people turn up in training, which means that the armed forces are undermanned. I would have thought that that was something the Armed Forces Commissioner might want to do a thematic investigation into. It is tricky, because these people are not subject to military service, but maybe the Secretary of State could nevertheless consider the issue in defining the role with the new commissioner.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her new clause and her concerns about potential recruits. First, it is absolutely vital that we fix the recruitment crisis that the armed forces have experienced for much of the last decade. As the shadow Minister confirmed, our armed forces lose more people than they gain, which is an unsustainable position. That is a dire inheritance, which fundamentally shines a light on the failure of the last Government to give our armed forces not only the people they need, but the systems and the support that people need to join and to stay in service.

I recognise that many of the people applying to join the armed forces wait for far too long, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It is for precisely that reason that the Secretary for State gave a commitment in his Labour conference speech on the “10-30 provision”: within 10 days from application we will give a provisional offer to join the armed forces, and 30 days from the point of application we will give a provisional start date. That is being rolled out at the moment. It will take some time to deliver across all three services, but that is an important step towards providing more clarity. When people understand how long the recruitment process will take, they are better able to make decisions about travel, work or their own life in that period.

[Lincoln Jopp]

If that strategy does not work or if it is seen to be failing, will the Minister make it clear whether that is something that the Armed Forces Commissioner could look at? As the Bill is currently drafted, they would not be allowed to do that.

[Luke Pollard]

I was coming to that point. At any one time, there are roughly 150,000 applicants in the military joining process, all of whom are still civilians and who would be brought under the scope of the commissioner by this amendment, were it to pass. That could vastly increase the workload of the commissioner and mean that service personnel and their families would not get the attention they need.

[Mr Francois]

On the point about recruitment, I hope the Minister, who is fair-minded, would be prepared to attest that in the previous Government, when I was on the Back Benches, there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me. I wish the previous Government had done something about their poor record and I invite the new Government to do something about that—the sooner the better.

[Luke Pollard]

I believe the right hon. Gentleman has not been on Capita’s Christmas card list for quite some time. Speaking as the Minister responsible for recruitment, we have set out some policies in relation to improving our recruitment process, in particular the time of flight issue that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Spelthorne. We will be making further announcements in the new year on how we seek to improve that, but there is work under way in all the single services and across the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman invites me to say something now, but I ask him to hold his nerve; there will be further announcements in due course.

On the concern about recruits, potential civilian recruits are unlikely to have encountered general service welfare issues in the same way as those people who are in service, who will be the principal remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner. The experience of potential recruits is very important and we have set a new ambition for the armed forces to make a conditional offer in 10 days and provide a provisional start date in 30 days. On their first day of basic training, candidates complete an attestation that makes them a member of the armed forces, subject to service law and therefore within the scope of the commissioner from that first moment.

To reassure the Committee, the new Government’s work in improving retention and recruitment is part of a package of measures aiming to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. We are modernising and refining our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talents, highlighting that Defence is a modern forward-facing employer that offers a valuable and rewarding career.

There will be further announcements about how we seek to build on recruitment in the new year, but let me put firmly on the record that there are a lot of people who want to join the armed forces, especially young people looking to establish a good career in our military. We and all those with responsibility for supporting our armed forces need to improve the recruitment process to enable them to join, and that will improve the warfighting capability—the lethality—of our armed forces and thus the deterrent effect.

The issues that the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell and for Spelthorne raised are very important. We do not believe recruits should be within the scope of the commissioner because they are outside the scope of service law, but I entirely recognise that there may be issues that recruits may wish to raise with the Armed Forces Commissioner about the recruitment process subsequent to their joining the armed forces. The commissioner would therefore need to make a decision on whether to take up those issues, based on whether they fall within the definition of a general service welfare matter. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Commissioner’s interaction with Veterans Commissioners

“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish details of –

(a) how the Commissioner will work with the National Veterans Commissioner, the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner;

(b) how the Commissioner and the Secretary of State will each ensure that veterans receive appropriate and necessary support.”—(Mr Francois.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make clear how the Commissioner will work with the Veterans Commissioners.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the shadow Minister for his views on engagement with veterans commissioners. To reiterate, the purpose of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to shine a spotlight on and be an independent advocate for serving personnel and their families.

Notwithstanding the really important contribution that veterans make to our communities—and our armed forces community—we are seeking to address the particular deficit of scrutiny on the issues affecting armed forces personnel because they are not allowed to take up the same channels to raise a concern as civilians are. There are preventions on them speaking to Members of Parliament and the media in the way that a civilian can. That is why we are addressing those particular concerns with an Armed Forces Commissioner, who will look at those personnel and their issues alone.

In setting out clearly where we are, however, I turn to some of the issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. First, I put on the record the importance of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the main Chamber just now—she was addressing the Etherton report. All the members of the Committee who were not in the Chamber—because we were here—will have missed the announcement made by the Secretary of State: we have adopted 42 of the 49 recommendations in the Etherton report and implemented them; we will have implemented all 49 by the end of the next year; and, for the shame brought on our society by how LGBT veterans were treated, we are increasing the amount payable to them recommended in the report by 50%, from a fund of £50 million to one of £75 million.

That means a standard payment of £50,000 for those LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexuality or gender identity, with a further £20,000 for an LGBT impact payment, which depends on their experience of the ban. From the harrowing testimony of many LGBT veterans, we know how they were treated because of their sexuality or gender identity—disgusting medical interventions and imprisonment. Furthermore, we will provide additional support for restoration of rank, if lowering of rank was involved at the point of dismissal, and for correcting their service record. Today’s announcement was a substantial one, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Minister for Veterans and People for championing it so clearly from day one in office.

In responding to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I do not wish to belittle or disregard any of the veterans’ concerns he has mentioned or those in the wider community. The focus on armed forces personnel is really important. As such, his questions sit outside the broad brush of where we are for this Bill, but I entirely understand his passion. I am happy to take those questions back to the Department and ask the Minister for Veterans and People to write to him with further details, which is probably the appropriate way of getting the ideas that he requires.

I gently point out that there is no shadow veterans Minister in the shadow Cabinet, a choice that could have been taken by the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. I would like to—I think—welcome him as the shadow veterans Minister, because he shadows nearly every other Commons Minister, which is quite a lot of work for him. When we were in opposition, having a dedicated shadow veterans Minister—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, who is now sitting behind me as the Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary—was important, because it gives due regard to the experience of the veterans. I hope that his party will be able to follow Labour when we were in opposition, and appoint a dedicated shadow veterans Minister, in whatever form that may be, in due course.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that this matter is important. The Defence Secretary sits around the Cabinet table representing veterans, and he does so very well. We have seen from the Etherton announcement today that that voice around the Cabinet table delivers real benefits for veterans in increasing the support available to them, but we need to ensure that this Bill is tightly drawn around the general service welfare needs of our armed forces and the people who serve in them.

Having said that, let me show a little bit of parliamentary leg to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, in terms of where the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation reforms could come into play. It is another policy of this Government to create a new area where, instead of people having the binary status of being in the armed forces or not—and we recognise that many veterans face a real cliff edge in terms of their lived experience and career trajectories when they leave service—they can rejoin the armed forces, removing some of the current barriers that prevent them from being able to do so.

That is an important part of being able to address the skills need, but we also recognise that in the modern world people may have careers, in uniform and out of uniform, that could be of benefit to defence. There could be an area of service where people serve, leave, serve outside in a civilian role, rejoin and do so likewise. In such circumstances, the general service welfare matters of the Armed Forces Commissioner would pertain to their experience subject to service law, but the Armed Forces Commissioner may wish to look at the rejoining aspect in due course, as part of a general service welfare matter for them as re-joiners.

[Lincoln Jopp]

There is something of a twilight zone. We heard from Colonel Darren Doherty on Tuesday that he had done his 38 years’ service and was now entering a period of regular reserved service, which, as the Minister knows, is a residual requirement to answer the call to arms. I have checked with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and I believe her period has finished. I think mine is finished, but I am always waiting for that knock at the door. I am pretty sure my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is still well within his window.

When examining the secondary legislation, it might be worth examining this issue. If that cohort of people felt that they wanted to report an issue, would they report it to the Armed Forces Commissioner because they were still liable to call-up, or would they report it to the veterans commissioner whenever that role is introduced? I believe that those on the regular reserve list are not subject to military law, but I think they are subject to criminal law in terms of their requirement. I am genuinely not clear on the matter, and if I am not clear, then each commissioner would not necessarily be clear as to which one is responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to use the call-up powers that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces to pick and choose, which is certainly not how I would reflect those powers in a day-to-day operation. However, he raises a really important point, which speaks to the broader challenge of where we are with reserve forces.

At the moment, there are a number of different categories of reserve forces to which a large chunk of legislation pertains, some of which may be relevant and some of which may need updating in order to deliver it. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a piece of work at the moment to look at how we can do so. That is part of the work to renew the contract between the nation and those who have served, but also to make sure that we have available to us as a nation not only a reserve force made up of those people who are subject to service law, but a strategic reserve made up of those people who have left but who—as the hon. Member for Spelthorne says—still await a knock at the door if required. That piece of work is ongoing.

The legislation in relation to the Armed Forces Commissioner clearly deals with people affected by service law, not necessarily by a residual commitment. However, it would be up to the Armed Forces Commissioner, depending on the issue of the thematic investigation, whether he or she wished to invite the opinions of people who may sit outside of uniformed service, as well as of families. That would be a matter for the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the hon. Gentleman will have spotted that there is a clause in the Bill allowing the commissioner to invite views from whoever they see fit in the exercise of their duties. That may be something that the House of Commons Defence Committee wishes to interrogate further, or something that we should pick up once the commissioner’s office has been stood up.

[Mr Francois]

To begin on a light-hearted note, I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North for pointing out that I do not sit in the shadow Cabinet. If she wants to drop my leader a note recommending that, I promise not to stand in her way. Bless you—have a good weekend!

On a more serious note, there is concern, which I hope I have managed to evidence, about the decision to move the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD. I think that point has been made, but now that it is the MOD’s responsibility departmentally it would be very helpful if, when the Minister writes to me—obviously, he will write to every member of the Committee; it is copy one, copy all for anything that relates to a Committee proceeding, as you will recall, Mr Betts—he gives some detail in reply to the questions I have asked. Where is this English and/or UK veterans commissioner? We raised that question on Second Reading, so when the Minister replies, perhaps we could be updated and given a date for when that is actually going to happen. If it is not going to happen, perhaps we could be told why. Perhaps we could also have some response to what has clearly happened in Northern Ireland, which is obviously undesirable.

Perhaps in his note, the Minister could also explain the Government’s conception of how the Armed Forces Commissioner will relate to these three, possibly four—hopefully four—veterans commissioners. When somebody makes the transition from being a serviceperson to being a veteran, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for quite a number of years. When they hand back their MOD 90 ID card—which as the Minister knows, servicepeople are supposed to do, but some forget—and get their veteran’s ID card in return, that is a big thing in their life, particularly if they have served for 22 years, say. That is a massive transition, so if the Armed Forces Commissioner is going to do their job effectively, remembering what armed forces personnel go on to do and the changed status they have is something that should legitimately be at the forefront of their mind. There should be some mechanism whereby they can interact with the veterans commissioners around the United Kingdom, so I do not think it is an unreasonable ask.

[Luke Pollard]

At the risk of repeating myself, it would be for the Armed Forces Commissioner to determine interactions, but I would expect the commissioner to establish procedures for consulting and engaging with a whole range of armed forces communities’ representatives, including those who represent veterans’ communities. As we know, many veterans’ organisations have interests similar to those of the serving population, so I suspect that the commissioner themselves would establish those procedures. None the less, I am happy to include that in the note.

[Mr Francois]

I take the point. We have made the case, and I hope the Minister will reply promptly—let us say January, please, not March or June. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and the other members of the Committee in January, when we come back from our Christmas break, specifically about what is going to happen to those veterans commissioners, because they are now under the purview of his Department.

With that said, Mr Betts, we do not want you to miss your train. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Operation Stifftail

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Operation Stifftail, the UK’s deployment of the Sky Sabre ground-based air defence capability in Rzeszów, south-east Poland, has now concluded. Originally deployed in April 2022 and extended on four occasions at the request of the Polish Government, this has been a hugely successful operation that has significantly benefited the UK-Poland relationship, contributed to supporting Ukraine, bolstered NATO’s eastern flank, and furthered interoperability between our two armed forces.

Working as part of the Polish-led, multinational, integrated and multi-layered air defence network, the UK troops on Op Stifftail have demonstrated exceptional hard work, determination, and professionalism. The capability supported Poland’s wider air defence, contributing to Ukraine’s continued fight against Russia’s unprovoked and illegal invasion by protecting the logistics enabling node at Rzeszów, which facilitated the movement of most western military equipment donations to Ukraine and ensured the safe onward travel of Ukrainian recruits to undertake basic training in the UK. The equipment will now be reconstituted to the UK so that it can be made available for further use in 2025.

Op Stifftail has provided a consistent backdrop in a long line of UK-Polish military co-operation over the last three years. Alongside this operation, we have deployed a squadron of Royal Engineers to respond to the migrant crisis on the Belarusian border, a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks to support Poland’s donation of T72 tanks to Ukraine, and several RAF Typhoons to bolster the protection of Poland's airspace.

The UK will continue to stand with Poland and our other allies on NATO's eastern flank. The UK leads NATO's Forward Land Forces in Estonia and contributes a persistent presence to the US-led FLF effort in northern Poland. In the spring, we will deploy UK Typhoon fighter aircraft to Poland for the protection of Poland's airspace through NATO's enhanced air policing. We will also be sending a military engineering liaison officer to work closely with the Polish army to continue bolstering the security of Poland's eastern border with Belarus and Russia.

As well as delivering against their primary operational tasks, each of these deployments provide unique conditions for our armed forces to develop relationships, better understand our respective operating procedures, and ultimately form a bond of trust that ensures that when the time comes, we can deliver a gold standard of integration and interoperability and prove that we are stronger together and more than the sum of our parts.

[HCWS304]

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I will make a brief contribution to say that we take it as axiomatic that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be mindful of the principles of the armed forces covenant throughout the performance of his or her duties. There may be an occasion later in the debate when there is some conflict between those principles and what the Government are currently proposing, but we will highlight that when we get to it, to remain in order.

In essence, it seems to us entirely logical that the commissioner should be mindful of the principles of the covenant, as they are important. The two key principles, for the record, are that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage relative to the civilian population by virtue of their service and that there should be special consideration for armed forces personnel and their families, especially the wounded and the bereaved, in certain circumstances. Having placed those on the record, I am sure the Minister will not demur; hopefully, we can deal with this amendment fairly promptly.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see Members from both sides on this Committee for an important piece of legislation. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment. I agree that it is important that we place prominence on the armed forces covenant. The amendment would require the commissioner to have due regard to the covenant principles as part of their general functions.

As the Committee will know, the armed forces covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the armed forces; and their families. The Government are fully committed to the armed forces covenant; indeed, our election manifesto included a commitment to place the covenant fully into law. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we will bring that forward as a provision for consideration in the Armed Forces Bill, probably in roughly two years’ time.

An important aspect of the covenant is that it applies to both serving and former serving members of the armed forces. The Armed Forces Commissioner is very much focused on the serving community and their families. It will be perfectly proper for the commissioner to consider covenant issues where those relate to serving members of the armed forces and their families. I would imagine that those issues would be very much at the heart of what we mean by “general service welfare matters”, as outlined in the Bill. That will be within the remit of the commissioner, alongside the commissioner’s general function to promote the welfare of service persons and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the issues.

[Mr Francois]

Much of the covenant is already enshrined in legislation, as the Minister probably knows; that was done under the previous Conservative Government. Since he mentioned it, will he explain to the Committee which elements of the covenant he believes are not already enshrined in law and therefore would have to be covered in the next Armed Forces Bill?

[Luke Pollard]

I am very happy to stray out of the lane of the legislation we are considering today towards legislation that we are not yet considering, if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes. As he will know, only part of the armed forces covenant is in law, with a special grip on local government. In our manifesto, we committed to put it fully into law. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a cross-Government piece of work to identify precisely which clauses would need to be inserted into the Armed Forces Act to make that work.

Insertion into an Armed Forces Act is also relevant to the amendment of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. As she will know, this Bill not a stand-alone piece of legislation: it seeks to amend parts of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Can I direct her attention to part 16A of the Armed Forces Act 2006? That is the part that deals with the armed forces covenant. She is right in the respect that the covenant is not explicitly mentioned in this Bill; that is because this Bill, when passed, will be inserted into that Armed Forces Act, which includes part 16A relating to the armed forces covenant. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, she will be able to withdraw the amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I want to make a point about the wording of the amendment, which reads:

“The Commissioner shall operate independently from”.

Reviews that I have conducted of the powers of other commissioners do not explicitly state that. There are many special interest commissioners these days, so this would be an unusual provision in that regard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, I think the building of trust is essential to the smooth operation of the commissioner’s work with the armed forces and their families, which we so badly need. But that will be done in so many ways through the office of the commissioner. I do not think it would depend on this particular amendment.

[Luke Pollard]

I genuinely welcome the principle of the amendment and the spirit in which it has been tabled. It seeks to reinforce, in the Hansard of this debate, the position of both the Opposition and the Government: that the role should be independent. The commissioner should be able to conduct their inquiries and work separate from the functions of Government. It is precisely for that reason that we have drawn up the legislation in this way, so that the commissioner is independent. It is always helpful to place that on the record again. Should any future generations need to look at the intent of the Government at the time when this legislation was originally proposed and at our cross-party agreement that the commissioner should be able to carry out their functions without direction from the Ministry of Defence, they will be able to refer to this part of the debate and see that very clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I think the amendment speaks for itself. I seem to recall that on Tuesday the Minister laid out a timeframe for the establishment of the commissioner and their office; from memory, I think he said that the intention was to have it up and running in early 2026. Perhaps, in the spirit of the hon. Lady’s amendment, he could say a bit more in his reply about the timing, and particularly about the interview process. I have a particular reason for asking that question, which I will come back to later.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for moving her amendment. This legislation is a priority for the Government. We want to do this prominently, to provide a clear signal to our people and their families that their welfare matters are important and should receive a greater focus from the Government and the Ministry of Defence and therefore from the single services. At the same time, it needs to be done correctly.

I share the hon. Lady’s eagerness to make sure that the commissioner’s role is properly established and brought forward. We have not detailed the implementation timetable in the Bill; that would not normally be necessary in primary legislation. As the Committee will be aware, there are several factors affecting the commissioner’s appointment. Notwithstanding the role of the Defence Committee in pre-appointment scrutiny, the commissioner will be appointed following the passage of the Bill. Their role will be subject to a full public appointments process regulated and overseen by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In addition, the intended timeframe will need to factor in the passing of the necessary secondary legislation.

We expect this process to continue in 2025. In parallel, we will be undertaking the necessary implementation to ensure a smooth set-up and transition from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new commissioner’s office. It is important to stress that the team in SCOAF are doing a good job, and we should ensure a smooth transition into the new function for all the people working hard to support our armed forces.

I can therefore confirm that we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be stood up in 2026, but I would expect Opposition and perhaps Government Members to table parliamentary questions throughout to investigate the process that we are undertaking.

It is worth saying that the full public appointments process will also undertake the necessary vetting and security clearances required for this role. That will further build the trust among armed forces personnel not only that the person appointed to the role is experienced, necessary and appropriate, but that they have the necessary vetting and security clearance to undertake a role on military bases in particular. I hope that the hon. Lady will take that reassurance and withdraw her amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Last year, service morale fell to its lowest level on record, with only four in 10 of our armed forces personnel reporting being satisfied with service life. They reported that the impact on families and on personal life was the leading factor influencing the decision to leave our armed forces. This Bill is a deliberate and major step to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand alongside them.

Clause 1 will establish and set out the functions of the Armed Forces Commissioner by inserting proposed new section 365AA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. It will also abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. That is legislative language; the intent is to move it into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, but in parliamentary drafting terms the office is abolished. Other provisions of the Bill, which we will come to later, transfer the ombudsman’s functions to the new commissioner.

Subsection (2) of proposed new section 365AA will provide the commissioner with new functions to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families and to improve the public’s understanding of the welfare issues that they face; It will also provide the commissioner with the functions set out elsewhere in the Bill. Subsections (3) to (5) of proposed new section 365AA will give the commissioner the necessary freedoms to carry out their functions and meet their objectives, along with reference to any related restrictions. Subsection (6) introduces new schedule 14ZA, which sets out further detail on the establishment of the commissioner’s office.

Clause 1(2) will abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(3) will repeal section 365B of the Armed Forces Act, which established the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Clause 1(4) introduces schedule 1, which will insert new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act, for those who want to follow it up in their bedtime reading.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister has summarised the clause very well. We understand the intent of the Bill. We said on Second Reading that we would be a critical friend to it, and hopefully that will play out today. Nevertheless, we support the principle of what the Government are doing, so there is no need to divide the Committee on clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Armed Forces Commissioner

[Mr Francois]

I declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee for about seven years. Over the years, there has been a debate about the extent to which the Defence Committee and other Select Committees should have power over appointments in the relevant Department.

If I can draw a quick analogy, the United States Congress has a slightly different constitutional settlement from ours, but its Committees tend to be much more powerful than ours. They and their Appropriations Committee counterparts have what the Americans call line-item power, so they can increase or decrease the spending on a particular defence programme. Would that for one moment the Defence Committee had had that power. I see the Minister grinning quizzically at that.

[Luke Pollard]

For Ajax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think the difference between the American system and the British system is stark, not least because of the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this place.

As the Minister has outlined, there is obviously a role for the Defence Committee to pass an opinion. That is our convention, and I think it works very well, in addition to the scrutiny we see from Members of all parties. If that became a problem, I am sure that both Opposition and Government Members would be tabling written questions, motions and whatever else. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was clear that his Committee would look carefully at that. There is a strong difference between the American system and the British parliamentary system in that regard.

The full independent public process that will be followed for the appointment is another key difference. It is unlike the US system, which has a presidential appointment and under which there is no vetting; anyone can be appointed. We therefore have an additional stage of security, both for public and for parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that amendment 5, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her amendment 5. As with amendment 7, it is good to be able to place on the record our intention for how this process should work.

Amendment 5 would insert a requirement for the House of Commons Defence Committee to conduct pre-appointment hearings and to state a positive or negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for commissioner. The Secretary of State would be able to recommend their preferred candidate to His Majesty only following a positive opinion from the Committee.

I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Second Reading debate, during which the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government are keen for the Committee to exercise rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny of candidates to ensure that we appoint the best person to be the independent champion for the armed forces and service families. The hon. Lady’s amendment would certainly set a precedent for wider Government discussion. I suggest that her argument might best be directed in the first instance to the Cabinet Office, given its cross-Government leanings, rather than to the Ministry of Defence.

The Government have said that the pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee should be vigorous and thorough. We expect it to go above and beyond the current process, precisely because the commissioner will report their recommendations to Parliament via the national security scrub in the MOD, so their role is somewhat different from the role of other commissioners who might receive pre-appointment scrutiny from other Select Committees. Their powers are designed to be greater, so a more prominent role will be given to Parliament. We are confident that the existing practices and arrangements in Parliament are robust, that they can address any concerns that the Select Committee may have about a candidate, and that we will be able to take the Committee’s views fully into account before making a recommendation to His Majesty.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The mechanics are different from those for a preferred candidate in other Departments, in so far as the candidate will have to go through top-level security clearance and presumably enhanced developed vetting. If they do not pass enhanced developed vetting, will they still be put forward as the preferred candidate? How will the mechanics work?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Member asks a fair question. We will not put forward anyone who does not pass security vetting; it is important that we place that on the record. This is a significant and prominent role. The commissioner will have access to our military bases. We do not expect, require or want them to look at anything beyond general service welfare matters, but there may be locations or people adjacent to those welfare matters that are sensitive to UK national security. That is why we have put national security powers in the Bill and why the Secretary of State has made assurances, which I am happy to repeat, that the commissioner will be security vetted. That is what service personnel and our colleagues across Government will expect. Someone who cannot pass security vetting should not be able to take up such a serious appointment in the Ministry of Defence. I am happy to give the hon. Member that assurance; I hope it reassures him.

In his short few months here, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar has established himself as formidable and forensic in his tabling of parliamentary questions to the Ministry of Defence.

[Mr Francois]

You think he’s being nice. He’s not really.

[Luke Pollard]

I am aware that there are other people in the room who table questions to us. I will choose some adjectives carefully in due course.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made is a fair one. The senior appointments process is well established across Government. We enjoy good scrutiny of the process ourselves, as part of its oversight by the structures around the Cabinet Office. We and the previous Government have both focused on that to ensure that the process produces the right people.

I hope that the additional pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Defence Committee, as well as the seriousness with which the Government and the Committee take the matter, will provide even more robust scrutiny. I would be very happy, where appropriate, to respond to parliamentary questions throughout the process to reassure Members that it is being conducted in a manner that is not only timely but thorough, ahead of any pre-appointment scrutiny by the HCDC.

The spirit of the Bill is to engage Parliament more in the role of this commissioner and to ensure that parliamentarians can have just as much confidence in the role as I hope our armed forces can. The whole process is designed with that in mind. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to withdraw her amendment.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the Minister for providing the reassurances that I think the Committee needs in order to ensure that there is absolute scrutiny. It is good to hear that there will be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee. We hope that that will ensure that the commissioner who is appointed is truly independent. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I do, but I have a contrary concern. People are leaving the armed forces in greater numbers than are joining. The other day, the Minister said— he will correct me if I have this wrong—that for every 100 who join, 130 are leaving.

[Luke Pollard]

indicated assent.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister is nodding. We have a problem: our armed forces are shrinking. That is not necessarily purely for budgetary reasons; we are not going to get into the 2.5% of GDP discussion—I would love to, but I do not think the Chair would thank me for it. More are leaving than are joining and there are a number of reasons why. As a former Armed Forces Minister, I was commissioned by a previous Prime Minister to write a report on why people leave. It was called “Stick or Twist?”, because that essentially encapsulated the dilemma that service personnel and their families face. By the way, the decision to leave is usually a family decision—it is a kind of kitchen table conversation.

The overwhelming reason why they leave, as we have said, is the pressure of service life on family life. One reason why quite a few personnel are leaving now, however, is that they are worried about the legal implications of the work that they do and, bluntly, whether the Government have their back. That is becoming a bigger and bigger issue. If the commissioner is there to ensure the welfare of service personnel and their families, along the lines that the Minister articulated very well in the debate on clause 1 stand part, they are going to need some kind of legal capability to investigate those sorts of issues.

I take the points made by Government Members, but we are seeking to ensure that, whether it be full time or part time, the commissioner has the necessary legal firepower, for want of a better word. This comes back to the whole debate about trust; the service personnel need to be convinced that, if they have a worry or issue about lawfare, the commissioner is equipped to deal with it effectively. That is the spirit of amendment 10. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the issue is becoming an increasing worry for service personnel. Again, for the sake of brevity do not get me going on Northern Ireland veterans this morning. But this is a problem, and that is why the amendment was drafted.

I do not want to try the Committee’s patience, so, to summarise, we believe there is a broader issue here about the whole effect of lawfare on modern warfare—the effect it is having on both the recruitment and the retention of His Majesty’s armed forces. Having tabled the amendment to provoke a debate on that issue, and how the commissioner might help, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to a genuinely well-meaning suggestion.

[Helen Maguire]

On amendment 3, we feel that the financial and practical assistance of the commissioner must be absolutely appropriate. It is crucial that there is this resource, and that the commissioner can carry out the dual role of both promoting the welfare of service personnel and their families and improving public awareness of these issues. If those ambitions are to be met, alongside the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role that are to be assumed into the commissioner’s remit, the commissioner needs to be properly resourced. That is why we feel that amendment 3 needs to be included in the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the amendments as they give me the chance to speak about a number of issues. I first turn to amendment 9, tabled by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. He said that the purpose of the amendment was to require the commissioner’s staff to include a King’s counsel to provide legal advice to the commissioner. I agree that the provision of quality legal advice to the commissioner is essential, and having the facility in house may well be something that a commissioner will want to specify when setting up their own office. I think it is right, however, that the commissioner should be able to make their own judgment about what type and what level of legal support they may require.

It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the commissioner looks at general service welfare matters and not the conduct of military operations, which I realise he is familiar with. I will come on to the other points that he raised subsequently, but it is worth saying that welfare matters are the commissioner’s main remit.

[Mr Francois]

If you were one of the service personnel who was put through hell by Phil Shiner, that would be a welfare matter for you and your family. I could read into the record stories of stress, worry and angst that armed forces personnel have had to go through, sometimes for years, at the hands of Phil Shiner and his law firm, so let us not be over-semantic about it, Minister. For many personnel and their families, this was agonising. It jolly well is a matter of service welfare, because of the effect that it had on many people, many of whom subsequently left the armed forces, effectively in disgust. It really is a matter of welfare, and that is why we tabled the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I did say to the right hon. Gentleman that I would come back to those points, and I will do so, rather than responding immediately to his intervention.

A particular commissioner may wish to undertake an inquiry that involves many issues requiring regular and suitably senior legal input. In other circumstances, however, where a commissioner’s work is more routine in nature, it seema unnecessary to compel them to keep a costly KC on their books when other options may be more appropriate.

I should say to the right hon. Gentleman, as someone who is new to opposition—sadly, I was not new to opposition for some time—that making spending commitments is a dangerous sport. As a quick bit of maths, let us assume that the KC is full-time, that they are reasonably priced at £5,000 a day, and that they bill only for working days. Now, 260 working days a year at £5,000 a day is £1.3 million of billable time a year, or 24% of the estimated budget of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which, as we have set out in the explanatory notes, is £6.5 million, the commitment for an entire Parliament.

It is incumbent on us, in the spirit of creating an independent Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, to give the decisions on what staffing should look like to the commissioner so that they can undertake the staffing structure that is appropriate for what they have to say. However, I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the Bill will prevent the commissioner from agreeing with the Secretary of State a policy for staffing the office that could include a legal adviser. Indeed, I suspect staffing policy would not necessarily need to go into that level of detail; it would be more about the overall numbers, costs and specific terms of service.

Agreement of staffing policy with the Secretary of State is essential to ensure that the commissioner does not set out a staffing requirement that is disproportionate to the nature of the work being undertaken. It is not a way of preventing the commissioner from accessing the advice that they need.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

If the commissioner were to come to the Secretary of State and say that they would like members of the armed forces seconded permanently to their staff, what would the Secretary of State’s reaction be?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman raises a fair question. As part of establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, it may be appropriate for the commissioner to say that they would like a certain level of military expertise, be it serving or in a veteran capacity. The commissioner could have that conversation with the Secretary of State. I do not think that we would immediately volunteer or immediately deny—that would be based on the recommendations of the commissioner and the dialogue about where that sits—but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the amendment that we are making in the Bill to remove the requirement for an officer to make a decision. In one respect, we are seeking to remove military roles from the SCOAF function that can be done by a civilian. It is appropriate to ensure that if any military support is given to any part of the wider MOD family, we make the correct decision about whether it should be a military or civilian role, so we can ensure that we use the military in roles where they have the biggest impact in respect of our national security. However, I totally understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford raised the issue of lawfare. The Government recognise that the large proportion of allegations targeted at our service personnel in Iraq were without foundation, and we acknowledge the importance of protecting our people from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner. The judgment by the court shows that Phil Shiner spread falsehoods against our brave armed forces, and the Ministry of Defence submitted evidence of his abuse to the legal system, which contributed to his being struck off. The Government are renewing the contract with those who serve and have served, and that includes protecting our personnel from improper and vexatious accusations of the type perpetrated by Phil Shiner.

The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the ongoing inquiry in the High Court into matters that are either the ones related or near to the ones related. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on them now, but I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion, which he knows I share, for ensuring we look after our people better than they have been looked after to date.

I turn to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. I share her intention of ensuring adequate provision in the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner. The Secretary of State will have an obligation under proposed new section 340IA(7) to

“co-operate with the Commissioner so far as is reasonable”

and to give them any “reasonable assistance” that they require. That will ensure that they have the necessary assistance from the Secretary of State to conduct their work effectively.

Should the commissioner feel that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, they will have the opportunity to raise the matter in their annual reports, which are presented to Parliament. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and this mechanism will provide the ability to scrutinise and challenge any funding decisions. However, it will be for the commissioner to determine the shape and structure of any staffing or budget spend.

As the shadow Minister has confirmed, we estimate in the explanatory notes that the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner, based on careful scrutiny of the work of our friends in the German armed forces commissioner’s office, will be approximately £4.5 million to £5.5 million a year. That is a significant increase on the funding for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which at present is roughly £1.8 million a year.

While being wholly independent of the MOD, the commissioner will be required to abide by the financial rules, regulations and procedures laid down by both the Treasury and the MOD in the commitment to financial resources—something I think we would expect de minimis on a cross-party basis. We heard from the current Service Complaints Ombudsman on Tuesday that this is a common model and works well, so including a commitment to ensure sufficient funding and practical assistance, per amendment 3, or increasing it in line with inflation, per amendment 10, is not necessary. Amendment 3 in particular may introduce a level of subjectivity into the legislation that would be difficult to measure.

I welcome—I think—the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford’s rejection of austerity budgets and the commitment to increase public funding in line with inflation. I suspect that he has not quite thought through the full implications of that across all areas of Government spending. None the less, the slow process of rejecting the austerity politics that I so know him for is interesting. I welcome that movement.

What is certain is that the functions in the Bill provide a format for the Secretary of State and the commissioner to have a reasonable conversation about the budget. The budget that we are setting represents a considerable increase and is modelled to deliver a service that involves not only a continuation of the SCOAF functions, but the investigations and the wider visits portfolio that has been mentioned. We feel that that is sufficient, but I suspect that any Member of Parliament who feels that the budget is insufficient, based on the reports tabled by the Armed Forces Commissioner in their annual reports as opposed to thematic reports, will be able to ask suitably challenging questions of the Government of the day about ensuring that staffing levels and financial support are right, just as we would expect for access and the implementation of recommendations. On that basis, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Francois]

I will respond in kind to what the Minister says. As he will recall, his calculation was that even if the KC that we have been debating conceptually were full-time—we can argue about the rate—it might cost about £1.3 million a year. We never stipulated that it would be a full-time post; I think the Committee has explored. The essence of amendment 9 is that the commissioner would have access to high-level legal advice. Even if it were £1.3 million, given that our policy going into the election was to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, I think we could have found £1.3 million within that number. The Minister is the one with the challenge, because he does not have a date for 2.5%. If he ever gets one, we would all like to hear it. I think we could have afforded the post, even if it had been full-time—and we did not mandate that it had to be.

[Mr Francois]

That is correct, and under the Tories in the mid-1990s it was well over 3%. The problem is that a lot happened in the 14 years, including a war in Ukraine. That is why we probably need to spend 2.5% as quickly as possible.

Even if the Minister’s calculation is correct, by the time a senior NCO in the British Army gets to the rank of WO2, the King—or the Queen, before him—will probably have spent the best part of £1 million on training them. If they then leave, perhaps because they have had a very bad experience at the hands of the likes of Mr Shiner, that is £1 million of investment that has just walked out the door.

To be fair, the Minister understands the pressure. According to some figures that I received in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the strength of the British Regular Army is 71,300. This was in October. The establishment strength—the book strength, or what it is meant to be on paper—is 73,000. It was 72,500, but then there was an add-back of another 500, partly for the two Rangers Battalions. The British Regular Army is now nearly 2,000 soldiers short of what it should be, even on paper. Unfortunately, the trend is that more people are leaving than joining.

I am not highlighting that point in order to say that the whole lawfare issue is the only reason that people are leaving the British armed forces. That is not my argument, but it is one reason, and it is likely to get worse unless the Government do something about it. That includes doing something about the so-called Northern Ireland legacy Act.

I hope I have made the point sufficiently this morning; I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has acknowledged it and dealt with it. As I think the point has been made, I will not press amendment 9 or 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Schedule 1, by inserting proposed new schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006, primarily outlines the procedural aspects of the commissioner’s role and functions, including their legal status and terms of appointment, as well as disqualification and the delegation of functions. It encompasses the commissioner’s length of term, staffing arrangements and funding.

It is important that we set the parameters for the Armed Forces Commissioner while ensuring sufficient the impartiality and independence of their role. There are several provisions in place to ensure that this is the case, including paragraph 1 of proposed new schedule 14ZA, which establishes the commissioner as a corporation sole, setting them up to be legally separate from the MOD.

Although paragraph 3 of proposed new schedule 14ZA outlines that the commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, it should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, on Second Reading the Defence Secretary stated that he was keen for the House of Commons Defence Committee to exercise the toughest pre-appointment scrutiny as well, and I think he genuinely means that. We expect that to be robust, and I look forward to witnessing those sessions in due course. We need to appoint somebody who can do the job as a fearless, independent champion, and the Secretary of State will certainly take close note of the Select Committee’s views in any pre-appointment hearing.

Paragraph 4 of the proposed new schedule disqualifies a civil servant or member of the regular or reserve forces from being the commissioner. This is to ensure a fresh and independent perspective.

Under paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule, to ensure both ministerial and parliamentary oversight, the commissioner must provide written notice to the Secretary of State should they wish to resign. Although the Secretary of State may dismiss the commissioner if specific criteria are fulfilled, they must specify their reasons for doing so via a statement to the relevant House of Parliament. For the benefit of new Members, that means that if the Defence Secretary is a Commons Minister, it would go to the Commons, and if they are a Lords Minister, it would go to the Lords. None the less, it would be accountable to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I seek clarification on one of the points the Minister made about clearances, as I have not heard it in what he has said. Which level of clearance will the Armed Forces Commissioner be required to hold, and will the role be contingent on them holding it? If they cannot maintain clearance, will they lose their job?

[Luke Pollard]

I am happy to write to the hon. Member with our expectation of which specific clearance type would be required, but on the second part of his question about what happens if someone loses their clearance, it will be a condition of the role that they would be subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and require the necessary clearance, and in such circumstances they would not be fulfilling the terms and conditions of their role. I hope that gives the hon. Member suitable assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

Commissioner’s functions in relation to service complaints

[Mr Mark Francois]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(2) Once the functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman become functions of the Commissioner, the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints in the same manner as they were previously investigated by the Service Complaints Ombudsman.”

This amendment would clarify that the Commissioner will investigate individual service complaints, as the Service Complaints Ombudsman did, as well as investigating general issues and publishing thematic reports.

[Mr Francois]

The Committee will be pleased to know that I think we can deal with this fairly briefly. The amendment was tabled prior to the public evidence session on Tuesday, when I sought some clarity on something the Minister said on Second Reading regarding the extent to which the Armed Forces Commissioner will be prepared to take up individual complaints on behalf of service personnel or their families who have already exhausted the MOD’s complaints process. The Service Complaints Ombudsman currently has the ability to do this at their discretion.

Speaking to the amendment gives me the opportunity to commend the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, for the very good job that she and her staff have accomplished in virtually clearing the considerable backlog of complaints that were sitting in her in-tray. She told us on Tuesday that they now have only— from memory—30 individual cases left, all of which are live and actively being looked into. Given the history, as the Minister will know—I see he is nodding— this is a remarkable achievement, which drew praise from the Committee at the time that should be briefly repeated here.

If I may slightly cheekily say so—I promise I have not spoken to Mariette about this—when asked on Tuesday she indicated that she might be minded to apply for the post when it is advertised. I would chance my arm as far as to say that, based on her track record to date as Service Complaints Ombudsman, at the very least I think she should deserve an interview. It strikes me that she would be a strong candidate for the new role, although that will ultimately be a matter for the interview panel and, as we have discussed, for the Defence Committee, at least in part.

When we questioned the Minister on whether the Armed Forces Commissioner would have the power to continue to deal with individual complaints that had exhausted the MOD’s own complaints process, in addition to conducting the wider thematic investigations envisaged in the Bill, he confirmed that indeed they would. That is reassuring, but I would like to give the Minister the opportunity, should he wish, to add anything more about how he sees the process of dealing with individual complaints working in practice under the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

I echo the shadow Minister’s praise for the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman in reducing the backlog. Can I go further and thank all her team as well? We have seen a whole-team approach, and she has been able to marshal and deliver a much-improved service that is a helpful building block for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office. I will not be drawn on who the Armed Forces Commissioner should be, for obvious reasons, but we would expect someone senior, with an ability to deliver, to take on that role after a proper appointments process has taken place.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for tabling the amendment on how the commissioner will investigate individual service complaints. I will address his amendment and clause 2 together. The Bill already makes provision for the existing functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, set out in part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006—including those that relate to the investigation of individual service complaints—to be transferred to the new commissioner. The amendment is therefore not necessary.

To reassure the Committee, the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s functions and workload will be absorbed by the new commissioner’s office, and implementation work will continue in parallel with the passage of the Bill to ensure the seamless transition of all cases—new, active and closed—to the commissioner. There will be no interruption to Service Complaints Ombudsman service users during this process, and the Bill makes provision for transitionary arrangements to be put in place if necessary. The Bill abolishes the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so it is imperative that its functions be transferred properly to the new Armed Forces Commissioner. Furthermore, the new commissioner’s remit will be much broader than that of the ombudsman, and they will be able to proactively launch investigations into issues faced by service personnel and their families.

On the shadow Minister’s specific question, going a level below the detail I set out, it will be a matter for the commissioner as to how they choose to investigate. However, the broad understanding is that, as well as taking on the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions, the commissioner will seek to receive views from armed forces personnel and their families. They will then be able to make a decision or look at areas for deeper thematic reviews. I would expect there to be a certain level of correspondence on issues, but it will be up to the individual commissioner to decide how best to resource that and what procedures, policies and thresholds need to apply. That will be a matter for the commissioner rather than me as a Minister to set out. I hope on that basis that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured and will withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Francois]

I did assure the Committee that we would deal with this briefly. There has been a purpose to this brief debate, not least in placing on the record our praise and admiration for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman. That may or may not be a factor in any future interview. With that hopefully achieved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Procedure for making service complaints

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Luke Pollard]

Clause 3 amends section 340B(2)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a specified person may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than the function needing to be carried out by an officer. The clause will allow civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the armed forces is admissible in the service complaints system. Currently, specified officers exist in each of the services and are responsible for deciding whether a statement of complaint is admissible as a service complaint.

Let me explain the admissibility process: a statement of complaint is not admissible as a service complaint if, first, the same complaint has been made before; secondly, it is about an excluded matter as set out in legislation; thirdly, it has been submitted outside the required time limits; or fourthly, the complaint is not from a serving or former service person. The admissibility decision therefore does not require skills or experience specific to military officers, but the way the legislation is interpreted often precludes civilians from undertaking this task. This clause makes a small, technical amendment that will make the service complaints system more streamlined by allowing any competent person to deal with a complaint, rather than just a military officer.

[Mr Francois]

I have one question. We understand the reason for the clause and, as the Minister has made plain, the Bill amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, so the amendment is to that legislation. We understand why the Government have changed “officer” to “person”; will the Minister give an assurance that such persons could include the immediate family of a member of the armed forces? I ask because sometimes members of the armed forces are reluctant to complain, but their family feel very strongly that they should. Without wishing to start any rows within a household, will the Minister put it on the record that if the circumstances merited it, a civilian who is a member of the immediate family of a service person could go to the Armed Forces Commissioner if they were very worried about their loved one’s welfare? If he could give that assurance on the record, we need not detain the Committee much longer.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. It is important to distinguish between the different roles of the commissioner. The clause makes an amendment specifically in relation to the service complaints process, rather than the broader functions we are adding to the Service Complaints Ombudsman role to create the commissioner.

There are certain provisions, as set out in the Armed Forces Act, that mean that only a serving member of personnel or a veteran raising an issue from the time of their service can complain in the service complaints system. We are, however, expanding the provision outside that provision for welfare matters that sit outside the service complaints system. In that situation, family members will be able to raise an issue or a concern with the commissioner, but that is not a service complaint. I reassure the shadow Minister that that function will still be held by the current rules.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden.)

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Lincoln Jopp]

Q My second question is, will you be applying?

Mariette Hughes: If I am allowed to apply. As the ombudsman, I can do only one term, but obviously this is a new role. If it is decided that I am allowed to put myself forward for the job, I would love to be considered for it. I love what I do, I feel very passionate about it, and these are the powers we have been asking for. It would also provide the opportunity to ensure that the work of SCOAF, which we have got to a really good standard, can continue uninterrupted, while then focusing on, “What does this look like, how can we take it forward, and how can we make this work?”

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Q Thank you, Mariette, for all the work that you and your team have been doing. As the shadow Minister mentioned, the transition in what SCOAF has been delivering has been quite remarkable. I want to continue that journey.

One of the key provisions for the Armed Forces Commissioner is their independence. In my mind, if they are not regarded as independent, it will not work in enabling people to raise concerns and issues with them. Could you talk us through how independence works in your current role, and how you feel an Armed Forces Commissioner independent from Government, Ministers and the chain of command might operate on a day-to-day basis?

Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. The key point is that independence does not mean you are completely isolated, or that you cannot talk to Ministers and work collaboratively. It is about having an unfettered ability to decide how your work is shaped. When I took on the role of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, a key thing we always got asked, particularly on social media or in questions and queries about our services, was, “How are you maintaining independence? You are funded by the Ministry of Defence. You must therefore be in MOD’s pocket and none of your decisions is actually independent.” All ombudsmen face this, because we have to be funded from somewhere and it is usually the sector that we are overseeing. It is not an unusual thing.

One of our key priorities was setting out to the public, in a way that people could understand, how we maintain that independence. We designed a governance framework, which, to be honest, I was quite shocked that we did not have already when I took on the role. That has now been laid out to the House, and it sets out publicly that although the Ministry of Defence will provide my funding, it is not allowed to touch my cases, design my business plan, or tell me what I can and cannot do in pursuing the aims set out within the remit of my role. I would expect something similar with the commissioner, setting out who has the power to do what. It will need to be set out that although they report to the Secretary of State and are funded by Defence, they are entirely independent in the decision making.

[Luke Pollard]

Q That is helpful, thank you. Related to the role’s independence is the approach you take to national security. A challenge of a Bill like this is that its powers are deliberately drawn very wide. You mentioned briefly what decisions you are taking. Could you talk us through how you assess national security in your current role? There is a legislative scrub of reports contained within the Bill, but it would be helpful for the commissioner and for Members to understand what you mean by national security when it is included in there. Could you talk us through how you would regard that at the moment?

Mariette Hughes: Currently, we do not assess national security. We are overseeing just the service complaints system, which is about personnel issues—the issues service personnel face in the workplace. We naturally have a few cases where information is redacted because it is sensitive, because of the nature of where that individual works, and we work very well with the services on deciding what should and can be redacted. In a report where we are just talking about someone’s workplace experience, they should probably not be putting in information that needs to be redacted.

Going forward with the commissioner role, if the focus remains on welfare, I do not think it is as much of an issue as it might be. I understand the concern, because the Bill is so wide and gives those powers, but again, I cannot really see a situation in which the commissioner would need to get that involved in those issues, if that makes sense.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Good. My final question is about the powers in the Bill about dismissing a commissioner in the event of their being incapacitated or unable to fulfil their job. Could you talk through how that would work? Currently, if you were not able to fulfil your duties, how would that work? Is there any difference between the framework that establishes your office and the commissioner’s office?

Mariette Hughes: The framework proposed in this Bill is significantly stronger than what is currently in existence with my office. I have similar provisions in my terms and conditions that if for any reason I am unable to fulfil my functions, the Secretary of State can terminate my employment; equally, I can give notice. What is not in the current legislation or in my terms and conditions is the ability to appoint a deputy or an acting person to fill that role. That is a very real risk and it is a gap.

When I took on the role, there was actually a gap between myself and my predecessor during which nobody in the office could do any work, because there is no power unless it is delegated directly from the ombudsman and there is no power for the Secretary of State to put in an interim. There was a small period when nothing could happen. That is a real risk. At the moment, if I get hit by a bus—touch wood—and cannot come into work, there is nothing in the legislation that allows my staff to continue working unless I am there to delegate that power. The Bill allows for the commissioner to appoint a deputy, to delegate specific functions, and, in the event of incapacity or their being unfit to do the job, to be removed from post and an acting commissioner to be put in place. That gives us a lot more security than what we have currently, and I am in favour of it.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Q Thank you very much for joining us. In part of your introduction, you spoke about the number of complaints that you receive. Clearly, the number of complaints that you receive is lower than the number of valid complaints that probably should be made. How do you think that this role will encourage people who might not have actively come forward, such as people from LGBT backgrounds and non-UK personnel, and enable them to come forward and make those complaints?

Mariette Hughes: I think it will allow people who are experiencing an issue that affects a wider group or a demographic to bring forward that complaint as a whole. There is a lot of onus in service complaints on the resolution of individual grievances. You cannot bring a group complaint; it has to be an individual’s complaint with a named respondent. We are doing as much as we can to make sure that that system does not feel onerous, combative or scary, but some people are simply not comfortable putting their name down and saying, “I want to complain about my employer because of this.”

This new role has a wider focus on welfare, so you could form really good links with some of the networks to say, “Okay, when people come to you for advice, what are the things they are worried about? What are the things they are scared about? What policies are affecting them?” If those people are still not comfortable raising individual complaints, we need to ask what issues they are facing and whether we can cast a light on them. I want everyone to feel safe to come forward, but equally, if we know there are problems, it should not take the individual coming forward. If we know there are problems, we should be able to go and shine the light on it for them, so that they do not need to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Ranger]

Q What do you think would be a sensible timeframe in which we could say there had been a direct correlation between the commissioner being in place and seeing an improvement? What would be a timeframe to measure that over?

Ted Arnold: Again, I think that will be difficult to measure. Having an annual review that reports to Parliament, and perhaps the community making observations—not just on thematic reviews, but in the annual report as well, in a similar way as we do as a sector to the covenant—would be an appropriate way of measuring progress.

Angela Kitching: How you measure the impact of the thematic reports is crucial to that. After that annual report, you would then need to think, “Okay, what did we see that changed as a result?”. At that point, I suspect that you will see an impact on morale, with people feeling the difference because there will be something to point to. It is also about the mechanism for the commissioner to follow up on recommendations from previous reports and look at change over time.

There needs to be an adequate capacity in the office for them to have access to data that allows them to track the change over time as a result of it—I note that an amendment has been tabled on this today—particularly for groups whose experience might otherwise be invisible. Those groups are very small percentages of people, such as LGBT personnel, women in particular branches of the armed forces, and the experience of non-UK personnel, but otherwise they would end up being subsumed into the whole. It is important, as in the German reports, that some of those experiences are drawn out in the annual report and we track change over time for particular groups, who otherwise end up being lost in the wider picture.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you both for giving evidence. Can I take you back to independence and trust? Legislating for independence is one thing, but building trust in a system is quite different. Can you talk us through your expectations of how an Armed Forces Commissioner could build trust with armed forces personnel and—notwithstanding that their remit is predominantly people who are serving and their families—with the wider armed forces family as well?

Angela Kitching: What people mentioned to us when we spoke to them in groups was that they needed to understand who the commissioner was. They needed to understand their relationship with the existing welfare services in the individual branches, but also with the wider service complaints process. Knowing exactly what to expect from them was really important, as was their office being seen to be open, both for serving personnel and their family members, so that they could make a direct approach and not feel as though they had to chase through another system to be allowed to approach that person. Also important was that the person was prepared to visit, which obviously is the case for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman.

The digital access is a real issue currently, as you will be aware, on areas of our Defence estate, but also where people are operationally deployed or are struggling to get access to enough technology to allow them to engage with complex digital systems. What they did not want was something where they would have to log in to understand the ongoing process of what was happening. They needed somebody who could be reached via a variety of different sources and, as I have previously mentioned, something that would allow for transparency and a degree of anonymity, if they wanted it, in relation to thematic information, so that they were able to offer what evidence they had, even if they did not want to pursue it as an individual complaint themselves.

Particular attention needs to be given to experiences of bullying, harassment and discrimination. In any other service that we look at that deals with those complaints, people have a significant amount of protection when those are being considered. If, for example, a thematic review were to be opened into an issue that touched on bullying, intimidation or harassment, particular consideration would need to be given to how that evidence was collected, because people understandably feel very vulnerable about offering that evidence. The armed forces is a unique employer in that way, because it is not just a job, it is a life, and the life of your family, and it can potentially control your future career. The level of trust needs to be built because the level of exposure and risk is so high if somebody chooses to step out of line and raise something.

Ted Arnold: To build on that, I think an effort must be made to change the current culture to encourage individuals and people on their behalf to know that they can come to a commissioner. Building on the German model, that is not just to raise issues of grievance, but maybe the spectrum of duty-related issues, and not just those problems, but personal and social problems as well.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you for that. Secondly, in relation to the ability of armed forces personnel to raise issues, people in civilian roles have greater access to do that. Can you talk us through how you think it might work, being able to raise an issue that is outside the chain of command, but is still within what is, in our military, quite a hierarchical structure? Can you talk us through how organisations such as yours would be able to communicate the ways in which that could work, but which do not undermine discipline and military order, and which provide the opportunity for the commissioner to hear from people about their particular concerns?

Angela Kitching: When we have gathered evidence before, particularly on sensitive issues, often we have allowed people to speak openly to us with a very clear and ethical statement about how we are going to use that information, which they previously agreed to. There is certainly the potential for us to be able to pass on that information on behalf of armed forces groups. We did that in relation to the Etherton report when people did not want to give individual evidence and did not want to step forward themselves. We gathered those views and submitted them to the review team on behalf of people who did not want to identify themselves. There is potentially a role for organisations—not just us, but many others—to do that. Thinking about the location of those conversations is really important. They cannot be on bases; they need to be in an environment where people feel comfortable to express themselves.

Overall it is the assurance that the office of the commissioner has a degree of separation from chain of command that is the most important thing. Ensuring that the office has adequate resources to be able to do the kind of work that I have just described will be important, and trying to make sure that that person is able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently independent of the current chain of command, and are really able to bring forward views that will very difficult for chain of command to hear, is important.

Ted Arnold: Also, it is important for chain of command to feel that they are comfortable raising those issues as well, knowing that it is going to the Secretary of State and being considered by Parliament.

That also builds on and adds to the importance of the commissioner drawing upon data and evidence from the veterans’ community, particularly those who have been recently discharged. For some, it takes many years for them to get help and to reach that crisis point—to have those reflections and be able to say what could have been done better during their service. The removal over time—being away from your service and not fearing repercussions, particularly in terms of your career, can add to that. As Angela said, the Etherton review was a great example.

[Pam Cox]

Q Thank you for joining us today. I recognise much of what you say about the challenges of service life through my experience in the armed forces parliamentary scheme and representing a garrison city, Colchester. We all hope that the Armed Forces Commissioner will help to address those challenges. We talked about how we might measure the impact of the commissioner role, but how might that impact be communicated? What role might your organisations play in helping to communicate that?

Angela Kitching: I think it is really important to lay out from the start what the intended change is. When we are asking the commissioner to report, it needs to be a report that looks at the intended impact and then tries to measure against that. It cannot just be a report of activity.

I also think that, as the commissioner opens thematic reviews, they need to make sure that they invite evidence from organisations, academics and others who have depth of experience in some of the best ways to address some of those issues, and looking at the change that could be achieved over time. Many of them are well-trodden paths as research issues either in this country or internationally. They need to be looking at what works and addressing some of the concerns—that evidence is readily available, and we need to make sure that the commissioner is on the front foot in drawing that in.

In terms of Parliament, as soon as reports are laid in Parliament, we obviously do our best to try to make sure that they are well communicated in the community, but it is very difficult to reach into somebody’s service life. They are in the middle of their job, as you will have experienced, and their head is on the job. It is about making sure that they are well networked in the armed forces community. The armed forces champions who were mentioned would be one way of making sure that the wider system understands the changes that are necessary. Armed forces liaison officers, who are Government-appointed in Wales, are a good model for people whose role it is to reach into communities and are additionally resourced to do that, unlike the armed forces roles in local authorities and the NHS, which are usually voluntary. It is about being well networked in the existing armed forces communications structures.

There is also something about the in-service welfare system, which, as Ted mentioned, can be incredibly patchy in the way that it delivers outcomes for people. I think there is probably a duty there that thinks about how better we can require the in-service welfare system to consider changes that come out of the commissioner’s office, perhaps requiring them to write back to say, “This is the impact and this is what has changed as a result of it.”

I am afraid that the way to do it is probably all of those methods at once.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

May I interrupt you? We are running out of time, so will the Minister ask his questions?

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you for allowing me to interrupt, Sir Edward.

Wearing the hats from your previous roles, can I ask you to think about the unannounced visits power in the Bill? One of the bits that I feel strongly about is the ability of the commissioner to visit any base in the UK unannounced to look at general service-welfare matters. First, could you talk us through the effect that the commissioner having that power would have on how our military would address general service welfare matters in the broadest sense? Whether used or not, it would be a power that the commissioner had in their toolbox.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: There are probably two aspects to that. First, if this works well, units should embrace the perception of challenge that comes with an unannounced visit. If you are a unit that is functioning effectively, you should have no worries about it. If you are a unit that is hiding cultural issues, good—you are going to be found out.

If it is an issue about systemic stuff like housing or accommodation, it will be well known. Your ability in the chain of command to address some of these issues is rather circumscribed, but I hope you would welcome the chance to give evidence to the commissioner and say, “Look at the mould on the walls. Look at the living accommodation. It is provided by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, which is outwith my control. Please help me to try to make improvements for the young men and women under my command.” I hope people would start to welcome it. The optics of the commissioner coming out to do his or her job are fantastic and will act as a real catalyst for change.

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: I would support that entirely. If you have something to hide, you should be worried. If you do not have something to hide, you should be proud of your unit, garrison or base and welcome the commissioner coming to look at some of the wider issues.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Brilliant. Secondly, one of the key parts of the legislation is something that we cannot actually legislate for: Parliament picking up the issues when the commissioner reports their findings and recommendations to it. Can you talk us through how your organisations’ roles will change in that situation? You will have the ability to say, “Here is a recommendation,” and the opportunity to say to parliamentarians of all parties and structures, “Shine a spotlight on this.” How will you behave differently when those reports are brought forward? How will that be different from when, say, the SCOAF reports, which do not enjoy large-scale parliamentary scrutiny, are brought forward?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: In SSAFA, we have deliberately chosen not to be a lobbying organisation. We work with officials in the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in the Ministry of Defence. We feel that is our best role. Other charities do a great job in that space—in particular, I commend the Royal British Legion and Fighting With Pride, of which I am proud to be the patron. There is a debate on Thursday about some of these issues.

We will not change. Thank you for the compliments about SSAFA. We will continue to work to support serving personnel, veterans and their families. We will not change our position.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: We in the sector have two or three ways of interacting with the commissioner. First, during the generation of a report, I suspect that we as a community will build up a relationship with the commissioner, particularly through the serving UK personnel cluster, so charities with an interest in the serving communities will engage in that fashion.

When a report is laid before Parliament, and when we have looked at the annual covenant report, the Committees tend to come back to the charities for a session such as this to ask our opinions. I suspect that that kind of opportunity will again be of use, particularly with charities that have skin in the game and focus on the serving community.

[The Chair]

I think we have to stop it there; otherwise, we will not finish on time. Thank you very much for your evidence, gentlemen.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

Q I want to understand how you view the overall welfare services offered by the military? How do you see the commissioner working to improve areas where you might feel that improvement is required?

Abby Dryden: I can only speak about my organisation’s experience of working with the pre-existing welfare structures. The vast majority of the time those structures work very well, and they work well because of the people who are involved; they care about personnel. In my experience, I have only ever encountered a positive approach from military processes, structures and the chain of command side of things in terms of addressing the issues that we present to them. They are very much interested in the quality of life that personnel enjoy.

In terms of how I see the commissioner supporting that, how it could be different and where there might be gaps, there is always room for improvement. For example, younger people joining the military may have a different expectation of what that structure should represent to them, how they should be able to access services and the proximity that that institution has to their quality of life and the quality of their family’s life. I would say that the commissioner should focus on the changing expectation of new recruits and young people. That might be a positive addition.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Q I suspect I am about to be interrupted by the Division bell. However, thank you for joining us today. I understand that your organisation works not only with service personnel and veterans but with families. A key part of this legislation is enabling armed forces families to access the commissioner. Could you give us a sense of how the needs of families differ from those of armed forces personnel, who the commissioner provides for at the moment? How might the commissioner take a different perspective depending on which cohort they are looking at?

Abby Dryden: Lots of services are very much centred around the serving person. That is not a failing of those services, but I think families can sometimes, but not always, feel peripheral to proceedings. I think—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Q Let me ask Air Commodore Harper the same question about the RAF. Do you see any particular challenges not seen in the other services?

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I would make two points. There is a community and a family around a particular RAF station, of which there are 24 or 26 in the UK and others elsewhere, but there is increasingly a diaspora of families who live elsewhere, separated from that base. You have individuals who are weekend commuting to a different location where there is not the localised support for a family. It varies.

Generally speaking, historically, the support has always been focused around a serving base for the Royal Air Force. Increasingly, we need to reach out into other areas of the UK, where families have now settled for other reasons. That diaspora is UK-wide, in the UK context. It is a different challenge and there are different needs associated with both.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

Q Thank you all for all the work that you and your organisations do. One of the bits about this Bill that is a development of where we are currently is the ability for the commissioner to undertake thematic investigations into issues affecting the welfare of our people and their families.

Could you give us a flavour of the issues coming forward in the cohort that we are talking about in the Bill to your organisations and how you think shining a spotlight on some of those structural issues might be able to address some of the underlying causes? The purpose of the commissioner is, ideally, to assist in removing some of the barriers, obstacles and challenges that our service people and their families face. I would be interested to get your sense as to whether those structural issues have always been here or whether you have seen changes in recent years that need to be addressed by the commissioner.

Col. Darren Doherty: I would start by saying that much of our work is currently done and our support is currently provided to the veteran and family community. Only about 12% of our grants go to the serving community. That is because we base them on need and, thankfully, many in the serving community do not feel that need until they have left. Of that 12%, much is made up of family support in terms of bereavement and those sorts of things.

I think the situation is changing. In the future, I think we are going to look much more towards causation and prevention, which will be more within the serving community. I would highlight a project that we have recently become involved with, which is funding a training and education mechanism that will look at domestic abuse. That is not just treating or helping to support the victims of domestic abuse through a helpline, although that is part of it. The main part, through a charity called SafeLives, is looking at training and education. Much of that is aimed towards our serving community, through their own welfare officers. That initiative was prompted by the work of our trustees identifying that they thought this might be an issue. We cross-checked that with the Army and they believed it was.

That is an example where a thematic study carried out, or a report by the commissioner, could help identify other areas of need in the serving community where the third sector and in the Army’s case, the Army Benevolent Fund, could intervene and try to get at some of the root causes of these issues. That is where we intend to go in the future, while still providing the same degree of support to meet the need that we do now.

Mandy Harding: We are a commissioning charity in the sense that our grant-making uses commissioning principles based on need. We commission through grants to partners to deliver the outcomes. We do that by identifying need. We are very interested in needs, and any identified needs, because where we can identify the need, that is where we can appropriate the right resources and the right investment. From our point of view, anything that helps with that is very useful.

In terms of what is coming up, we have just commissioned some new work around mental health and wellbeing because of the changes we are seeing. Deployments now are to hostile areas, families have less information and the anxiety is harder for them. You cannot shield children so easily from social media and the news. Families have explained to us that they have tried to shield their children from the news in the home, but that changes the moment they go to school—I think HMS Diamond was probably a very good example of what happened, and the distress that those families felt at seeing that on the news and trying to shield their children from what was going on. There is a change and a shift.

From our charity’s position, we are currently looking at need again. We did a piece of need research of our own in 2019. Professor Walker’s work came in, which was incredibly helpful. With colleagues at Greenwich Hospital and at the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, we are all looking at need. We are working with the RAF and with the RAND research project to try to see what need is there. If a commissioner came in, it follows that we would be supportive of a commissioner who might be able to pull themes together for us, and then we can make the appropriate investments.

The only thought that I would offer from our experience of working with beneficiaries and organisations—particularly when I have done research into need and talked with beneficiaries—is to manage expectations. I think managing families’ expectations of this will be a challenge.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I just have a few points to add. From a Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund perspective, we augment what the service already provides. Much of what we see in the serving community in particular is what the air force has asked us to provide or, indeed, where we have found a specific need that is not being provided for either by the Royal Air Force locally on station or by partner charities.

I would pick up two areas in which we have seen an increase or growth over the last couple of years. The first is in emotional wellbeing support and sub-clinical mental wellbeing. We have a listening and counselling service that is accessed by over 2,000 people a year, of whom 80% are from the serving community. It was originally set up as a veterans’ programme, and it is now dominated by the serving community.

The second area is around children and young people. Increasingly, we have picked up a requirement to support children and young people, not just through after-school clubs or our youth club provision on stations, but through holiday provision as well. Increasingly, we are seeing the need to support serving children. Particularly where both parents are serving—that is increasing—we have picked that up as a requirement, and colleagues from the Royal Air Force Families Federation will be able to help with that.

As far as addressing underlying causes and needs goes, if the commissioner can be part of that solution, as I mentioned earlier, that would be fantastic. Already, it is a multifaceted response, but if the commissioner can come and say, “Here is an issue. This is what we have picked up. Is it being picked up by any other organisations?”—that includes, by the way, local authorities, the NHS and local education authorities—I think that would be of huge benefit.

[David Reed]

Q I echo the thanks for all you do for your single services. This Bill proposes a lot of new powers for an Armed Forces Commissioner. If, down the line, after this commissioner comes in, you take umbrage at how they are conducting themselves, is there a clear line of escalation in the Bill through which you would be able to provide a complaint—either to the MOD or directly to Ministers?

Col. Darren Doherty: I do not know.

Mandy Harding: I am firmly in grants, so I am not the right person to answer that question, I am afraid.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: From what I have seen, it is not clear how that would happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Maguire]

Q Maria, the same question to you. You understand the difficulties and challenges that RAF families face. How can the commissioner help support that?

Maria Lyle: I will not replay what my colleagues have said. Collette articulated a lot of the challenges that RAF families would also face in terms of their mobility. We very much see that. The thing that sums it up for me is the line that says that part of the role is improving public awareness of the welfare issues that serving families and personnel face, which I would wholeheartedly support. My only slight qualm about that is that it works two ways. Having a role that coalesces that understanding and helps us amplify people’s voices could be really powerful.

I would like to put on the record that I think it would be helpful if it is done in a way that supports the role in general, rather than put people off joining our military. Part of the challenge the military has at the moment is the impact of gapping and poor retention. This needs to be a part of bolstering the offer and talking about some of the benefits and challenges of military life. Otherwise we run the risk of making life worse for people because retention falls even lower. I recognise that is straying into a different area, but I would not want an opportunity to become a threat.

[Luke Pollard]

Q Thank you all for coming to provide us with evidence today. As Devonport’s MP I get lots of copies of Homeport from the Naval Families Federation for my constituency office, so thank you for all those that come through the post. For me the extension to families is a key part of the legislation, because it is the first time that we have had the acknowledgement of families in the Armed Forces Act with a real focus on their welfare needs.

I am interested to get your perspective on how you think an Armed Forces Commissioner’s office would deal with and seek to build trust with the families, because it is much easier for the commissioner to visit a base. If there is accommodation on site, that might be the case. But we know that not everyone who serves and their families live on bases. We explicitly exclude the commissioner from having a right to inspect someone’s home without notice, for very good and obvious reasons. But how do you think the commissioner should access and seek to get views from and be responsive to the needs of families? I know that will change depending on service and location and the barriers to get there. It is important that we have an understanding about what they are so we can seek to overcome them. Can you expand on that kind of challenge? Shall we go to the Navy first?

Sarah Clewes: That will be the tricky bit—building the trust and giving prompt responses. Doing what the commissioner says he or she is going to do will be really important to build that trust. We know from the covenant, for example, that has been around for 12 years, that if you ask serving personnel and their families, a large percentage of them still do not know what the covenant is, what it does, or how it changes their lives, and that has been around for a long time.

That is just an example of how education is absolutely key, as is building trust and rapport and having really slick processes so that if somebody has been invited to ask a question they get a swift response in plain language. Again, that will be really important when you respond to a serving personnel. You might send them a link to a joint service publication or whatever, but that will not wash with families who probably cannot access the JSP because of the firewall. What good is that? So having those tailored responses and being mindful of the audience that will be new will be absolutely key, and that will be the tricky bit.

Collette Musgrave: I would echo Sarah’s comments. Something that we have grappled with for a long time is how you engage with families. It is really important to understand, as Sarah says, how important trust in the system is. If expectations are not met fairly swiftly, families, on past experience, will simply not engage. But there is a more practical element, which Sarah touched on: access, accessibility and understandability. Too many of the responses that come out of Defence and too much of the communication is in language that is simply not accessible to people who are not wearing uniform. As somebody who used to wear uniform and was an MOD civil servant, I would argue that at times it is not even accessible to me, so it is about making it clear and really easy to access and offering a range of access.

Yes, we are all shifting to digital, and yes, we have seen in our organisations a distinct switch to people wanting to engage with us via email or other digital means, but there is still a large section of families who are not really able or willing to engage with that process. They will need to be able to pick up the phone and speak to somebody, and to have somebody at the other end who understands what they are saying. If I may refer back to the housing issue, the roll-out of the new housing contract and the Pinnacle help desk, one of the biggest issues with that was not having somebody who picked up the phone. When someone did, they had no empathy or sympathy with the issues being raised, let alone an understanding of them. In terms of the physical process of access, that will be absolutely key in ensuring that that works for families, is consistent and delivers what they expect.

Maria Lyle: The only thing I would add is that there is an opportunity to get it right at the beginning. Yes, no one gets everything nailed on the first time—the person in that role needs to develop it—but if the offer is clear at the beginning, it makes it a lot easier. By that, I mean: is this office more strategic or tactical? That is part of the process that we are working out now. By that, I mean that if people are making a series of phone calls to that office, it will have to be staffed to deal with multiple thousands of calls a year. If that is not what the office is set up to do, and if it is more about dealing with and amplifying strategic messaging about what is going wrong, the communications could be based on that. But if families are led to believe, “This is somewhere I can ring and they will get my house sorted,” it is about managing those expectations and nailing those comms.

Therefore, upstream of that, it is about being very clear and coherent about what the office is setting out to do. Is it individual case management for any family who rings up with a problem? That is very different from an office that views the evidence and goes, “The key issues for military families are these three. Here is what my team is going to do about them.” In terms of what you communicate to families, those are quite different beasts. It is really important to get that right.

[Pam Cox]

Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon. One of the key functions of the new commissioner will be to promote

“the welfare of persons subject to service law and”—

this is a key phrase—“relevant family members”. That is left deliberately broad. What is your view on how a relevant family member might be defined?

Collette Musgrave: Where to start? This is a problem that we have grappled with for many years. The Army Families Federation is 42 years old, and what a family member looked like back then is very different from what a family member looks like now.

Maintaining that flexibility about what a family member is has been absolutely key for us in being able to properly support families. It may very well be a spouse or civil partner, or it may be a child. It may be a grandparent, if they were involved in caring for or supporting the family in any way. It may be an aunt or uncle. Quite frankly, with many of the people we deal with, some of whom have had quite challenging and difficult upbringings, it may be that they regard their wider friendship network as their family and their support network. It is a real challenge sometimes for us as an organisation to delineate and work this out so that we can best support the individual or the family in question.

Clearly, when it comes to the provision of defence processes and services, there are quite clear rules and regulations about who is in scope. My organisation and I personally might take issue with some of those, but none the less they are quite clearly laid out. One of the key difficulties that families face is often navigating that alongside their expectations, and alongside how wider society and some of the statutory external bodies I referred to earlier regard a family. It is that level of confusion that this process will have to work through quite quickly, referring back to Maria’s point about expectation management.

I note that in the debate and the questions in the House there were quite a lot of comments about bereaved families. There has been a significant amount of work over the last couple of years on identifying and supporting bereaved families, and meeting their actual needs rather than their perceived needs. We would certainly like to see bereaved families being addressed in some way within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner’s activities.

That would probably be something of a challenge, because the needs and requirements of a family when they are initially bereaved can be quite different from those of a bereaved family 10 or 20 years down the line. That would most definitely be something of a challenge for the Armed Forces Commissioner to work through. Nevertheless, we feel quite strongly that bereaved families should be included in the scope of the definition of families. Beyond that, it is not straightforward. We would like to see the broadest possible definition, because that is what service personnel and their families need, and it should be responsive to their needs and not to what happens to be in the relevant JSP.

Maria Lyle: I recognise that in the legislation, there may need to be—I do not know; I am not responsible for passing this Bill—a clause about what is applicable overseas and in the UK regarding families, for example, and how they are defined and dealt with.

I will give a live example of why it is important to keep the definition as broad as possible. At the moment, adult children are no longer defined as “dependents”, but many families talk to us about the needs of their young adult children who cannot access bases because they can no longer get a dependent’s pass, perhaps because they are at university or have left university. These days, of course, it is really hard for a young person to get accommodation, so they often stay at home sharing married quarters in a way that they would not have done 10 or 20 years ago. It is that sort of thing—the changing shape of family—and this Bill is an opportunity to allow some of those issues to be voiced and made relevant to an Armed Forces Commissioner.

Sarah Clewes: A family may also constitute a couple who have chosen not to have children or who cannot have children. We may think of them as a couple, but actually they are a family, because they are a couple. Are they within or without scope? It is important to consider every single differing family dynamic so that people are not excluded.

Chagos Islands: UK-US Defence Relationship

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government’s Chagos negotiations on the UK-US defence relationship.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond on behalf of the Department.

On 3 October, the UK and Mauritius reached an historic agreement to secure the important UK-US military base on Diego Garcia, which plays a crucial role in regional and international security. The agreement secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia well into the next century. The agreement is strongly supported by our closest friends and allies, including the United States. It has been supported by all relevant US Departments and agencies, following a rigorous scrutiny process.

This base is a key part of UK-US defence relationships, as it enables the United Kingdom and the United States to support operations that demonstrate our shared commitments to regional stability, provide a rapid response to crises and counter some of the most challenging security threats we face. The President of the United States applauded the agreement. To quote him directly:

“It is a clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes.”

Several other countries and organisations, including India, the African Union, the UN Secretary-General and others, have welcomed and applauded this historic political agreement.

Our primary goal throughout these negotiations, which started over two years ago under the previous Government, was to protect the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia. There will be clear commitments in the treaty to robust security arrangements, including arrangements preventing the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, so that the base can continue to operate securely and effectively. The operation of the base will continue unchanged, with strong protections from malign influence.

For the first time in 50 years, the base will be undisputed and legally secure. Continued uncertainty would be a gift to our adversaries. That is why the agreement has been welcomed by all parts of the US system, and other critical regional security partners. Agreeing the deal now, on our terms, meant that we were able to secure strong protections that will allow the base to operate as it has done. We look forward to engaging with the upcoming US Administration on this and many other aspects of the UK-US special relationship.

Finally, hon. Members can be reassured that the long-term protection of the base on Diego Garcia has been the shared UK and US priority throughout, and this agreement secures its future. We would not have signed off on an agreement that compromised any of our security interests, or those of the US and our allies and partners.

[James Cartlidge]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

At a time when we face the most challenging military threats for years, surely our top priority should be to preserve the strongest possible US-UK relations, given that this is so vital to our national security, yet it appears that the Government are seeking to agree a deal surrendering the sovereignty of the Chagos islands before President Trump is formally in post. We know that the new US Administration are concerned about the Government’s deal because presumptive nominee US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the deal

“poses a serious threat to our national security interests”.

He has also suggested that

“it would provide an opportunity for communist China to gain valuable intelligence on our naval support facility”.

Let us be clear: our military base on Diego Garcia is a vital strategic asset for the UK in the Indian ocean, and it is critical to our presence and posture in the Indo-Pacific region. In particular, it is an especially important base for the United States, and we believe that anything that damages its defence posture, particularly in relation to China, also undermines our national security. We understand that the new Mauritius Government have now launched a review of the deal.

Will the Minister therefore confirm that the Government’s policy really is to try to rush through their Chagos deal before President Trump’s inauguration? Does he not see how that would be hugely disrespectful to the new Administration and President Trump’s democratic mandate? Given that we now know it is common for the MOD to state the cost of overseas bases, will he be transparent and finally tell the House how much we will have to pay to rent back the vital military base that we currently own?

Finally, although we would prefer the Government to cancel the whole deal, at the very least will the Minister pause any further ratification until the new US Administration are in place and the Mauritius Government have concluded their review?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his strong focus on this matter. I think he has a bit of amnesia from when the Government he was a part of started these negotiations. They held 11 rounds of negotiations, and it took a Labour Government to conclude them. We have done so in the best interests of our national security, and the national security concerns of our closest allies. It would not have been possible to secure a deal and the support of the United States if all parts of the US security apparatus were not in support of it, and as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that to be true, regardless of the politics he must play today.

The hon. Gentleman asked two quick questions. We intend to continue our dialogue with the new Mauritian Government and our friends in the United States. He will be aware, of course, that it is illegal under US law for us to engage directly with the new Administration until they come into place, but we will continue to have dialogue with our US and Mauritian friends.

I am surprised that as a former Defence Minister, the hon. Gentleman is asking about costs. He will know that it is usual for us to declare the operating and running costs of overseas bases, but it would compromise our operational security and long-term relationships if we were to declare the Government-to-Government payment for overseas bases. We have declared the operational running costs of our overseas bases, and we will continue to do so in response to parliamentary questions. Detailing the security payments for Government-to-Government interactions is not something that this Government do, and was not something that his Government did either.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is of great significance for defence and has strategic international significance. Steps must be taken to ensure that its legal status is secure in the future, and of course the voice of the Chagossians must be central in any future arrangement. It has been reported that President-elect Trump has reservations about the proposed treaty, and newly elected Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius has ordered a review into the treaty. What further representations have been made to both our partners to ensure that we have the support of our international partners?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The continuing operation of Diego Garcia is in the interests of UK and US national security, and this deal secures that operation. I congratulate Dr Ramgoolam on his election. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 15 November, he noted his commitment to completing the negotiations, and Jonathan Powell was in Mauritius this week to start that process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

We, and all those who care about the resolution of this issue, are deeply disappointed about the way we have been led to this point, with 11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservatives, and more under the new Government. Just four weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary presented his deal to the House. Now the new President-elect and the new Prime Minister of Mauritius are expressing doubts. Is it not striking and shocking that it has unravelled so quickly? Does the Minister agree that whatever happens next, it is vital that the voices of the Chagossians are finally injected into the process, and that they are able to fulfil their rights of self-determination?

Whatever lies ahead in these talks, the Liberal Democrats have strongly argued that all treaties should come before the House before signing, and I believe that members of the Government, including two who are on the Front Bench today, supported that in the past. Will the Minister commit to allowing meaningful opportunities for parliamentarians to examine the detailed proposals, including the necessary assurances on elements of the deal relating to our national security, before anything is signed?

[Luke Pollard]

We will follow the normal process for treaty ratification, which is that after signature, the treaty will come before this House, with details given to colleagues and with the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny, as would be expected as part of the normal process. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the Chagossians. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is sat next to me, has been meeting Chagossian communities in the UK. He will continue to meet those communities. This Government deeply regret how they were treated and removed from the islands originally. It is one reason why we have made the relationship with the Chagossians such an important part of the future of the islands, as the Foreign Secretary has previously outlined to the House.

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that the operations of the vital UK-US base on Diego Garcia will continue, completely unaffected by the terms of this deal? Separately, will he confirm that our commitment to the Falkland Islands, to Gibraltar and to the rights of the people there to self-determine remain completely unaffected by this deal?

[Luke Pollard]

As the first Minister from the new Government to visit the Falklands, I was able to say clearly that the Falkland Islands are British for as long as they would like to be. The message I gave to the Gibraltarians was that Gibraltar is British for as long as the people of Gibraltar want it to be. I confirm to my hon. Friend that this deal secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia. That is something that our US allies have supported.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Which is more important for Britain’s vital security: to have the approval of the outgoing American President, or the approval of the incoming one? What is there to prevent China, with Mauritius’s agreement, putting listening outposts on other islands that could compromise the security of Diego Garcia?

[Luke Pollard]

There are specific arrangements in the treaty that prevent any foreign power from putting security apparatus or security forces on any of the outgoing islands. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see that when the treaty comes before the House. In relation to the support of the United States, we would not have signed an agreement if it was not supported by our US friends. This deal secures the operation of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century. I expect that when everyone looks at the detail of the deal, they will back it too.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Chagos belongs to the Chagossians. A quarter of the global population of Chagos lives within my constituency. I am aware of statements made by Ministers that they have met representatives of the Chagossian community; I do not know who those representatives are, but I know of representatives in my constituency who have not yet been consulted. Does the Minister agree that before any further dialogue takes place, the Government should engage fully with the community representatives in my constituency?

[Luke Pollard]

The Foreign Office Minister beside me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, has met a range of representatives from the Chagossian community and will continue to do so as this process continues. I know that he would welcome a conversation with my hon. Friend to make sure that that dialogue is as complete as it can be.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

First, may I ask, what is the rush? Why is the Minister in such a hurry to get this done? May I suggest that it would be to the Government’s advantage, if their case is so strong, to allow this House to debate the agreed text in public before it is signed? May I also suggest that it stretches incredulity for him to tell the House that there have been no discussions at all with the incoming American Administration? Can he at least tell the House what informal dialogue there is with the incoming Administration about what their view really is? Can he report that to the House, please?

[Luke Pollard]

As a long-standing Member of this House, the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with how treaties are debated and agreed by this House. After signature, they come forward for ratification. This process was started a number of years ago by the Government that he supported. Eleven rounds of negotiation have taken place. We have secured a deal that is in support of the UK and US base on Diego Garcia, which will continue to operate well into the next century. When he and others see the detail of the deal, I am sure they will back it.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It is hard to imagine anything said from that Dispatch Box over the past five months that has survived contact with reality, and this is no different. In the tripartite relationship between the United States, the United Kingdom and Mauritius, two of those partners now have doubts about this arrangement, so what is the unseemly rush about? In the tension between national security and the human rights of the Chagossians, this Government, as usual, have managed to reconcile neither.

[Luke Pollard]

I am not certain whether the SNP’s record on national security really gives the hon. Member the platform that he is pretending to have on this one. I recognise, however, that he is trying to make a serious point about the deal. When the deal is signed, it will come before the House in the usual way. That will allow parliamentarians of all parties to look at the detail of the deal and take a judgment, and the House will vote in the usual way, as it will do on other treaties.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What is it in particular that the new regime in Mauritius have doubts about? It is that they want more money, isn’t it?

[Luke Pollard]

I think it is quite normal for any new Government to look again at a deal signed by their immediate predecessor—[Interruption.] The reason I say that is that when they look at the deal, they will see that the detail is convincing; just as it will be for our US friends, because it is a deal backed by the entirety of the US security apparatus that secures the future operation of the UK-US base well into the future and deals with the uncertainty around the base that existed until the deal was made. Hopefully, the right hon. Member will back the deal when the details come before the House—let us see.

[Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)]

The presentation of what the American Administration believe is a fantasy. Joe Biden is going—in fact, many think that he has gone already. I have been contacted by very senior officials and advisers from the incoming Republican Administration, and every single one of them is appalled at this deal. They know that the leasehold agreement will not survive, just as the deal with China over Hong Kong did not survive. Has not the time come for the Government to admit that this is a rotten deal for the UK, a rotten deal for America and an even worse deal for the Chagossians? If the Minister cares so much about the sovereignty of the Falklands being in the hands of the Falkland Islanders, why not have a referendum of the Chagossians and ask them to settle who should have sovereignty over those islands?

[Luke Pollard]

As someone who has been in the Falklands recently, let me say that whipping up uncertainty about their future is not helpful for the security of the Falkland Islanders. Let us be absolutely clear: the Falklands are British for as long as the people of the Falkland Islands want to be British.

When it comes to this deal, I am certain that when its detail has been put before this House and before our US friends and other allies, they will see that it not only secures the future of the UK-US base—something that is not the case until the deal is signed—but secures it well into the next century, when the hon. Gentleman and I will no longer be in this place but the UK-US base on Diego Garcia will still be operating, securing our national interests.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

We in this House all know how the People’s Republic of China has been able to use commercial vessels, including fishing vessels, to impinge on how we operate. Will the Minister set out how large an exclusion zone there will be around Diego Garcia to ensure that our interests and US interests are properly protected?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his serious question and the way in which he presented it. It is important that we have certainty about the security of the future relationship. That is why the treaty sets out clearly security arrangements for the outer islands that will prevent foreign nations from putting security forces or security apparatus on those islands. The full details will be in the treaty. It is important to note that Mauritius was one of only two African countries that did not join the Chinese belt and road initiative, and maintaining a strong relationship with it—especially in more contested times—is vital. That is what the deal helps to deliver.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister says that the outgoing Biden Administration in the US are keen on the deal, which may or may not be the case, but the British public plainly are not—for good reason—and they see the payment of a dowry to Mauritius as rubbing salt into the wound. If he is not prepared to comment on the quantum that he has in mind, will he at least explain the structure of the costings he is applying to come to the figure that he wishes to give Mauritius for taking on these islands?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the former Minister for his question. As he served in the Department that I now serve in, he will know that it is normal to reveal the operating costs for overseas bases, but that we do not—he did not and we do not—reveal the Government-to-Government payments. That was standard procedure for his Government and every Government before, and it remains the policy of this Government. This deal secures the future of the UK-US base, and I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to understand why it secures that for so long, and hopefully he will be able to back it.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Minister has said that he is not willing to give details of the financial arrangement, although he will be aware that the Mauritian Prime Minister has described the deal as a sell-out. Can he at least give an assurance that the Government will not commit to giving yet more money to get the deal through before the new US Administration arrives in January?

[Luke Pollard]

We think that this is a good deal. When the details come out, others will be able to make their judgment, but I think they will conclude that it is a good deal. It secures the future of the UK-US base on Diego Garcia, which was the overriding objective when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. The Conservatives set that objective, and we are glad that this deal secures the future of the base well into the next century. That is an important step for UK and US national security.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Will the Minister set out how he intends to implement safeguards against China establishing military capabilities and surveillance capacity in the British Indian ocean territories?

[Luke Pollard]

That is an important question, and one that I responded to a few answers ago. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that safeguards in the treaty will detail that no foreign security forces will be able to set up on the outer islands, providing that security perimeter around Diego Garcia that we and our US allies have sought. This is a good deal because it secures not only the future operation of the base but the future security around the base. I am hopeful that when the details come out, he will be able to see that for himself.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I return to a question asked but not answered this afternoon. If as a result of the review the Mauritian Government demand more money, will the Government pay up in order to save face?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am confident that this is a good deal. The Mauritian Government will look at the deal that has been signed and see that it is a good one. Our US friends know that it is a good deal, and anyone looking at it in future will see that it is a good deal because it achieves our No. 1 objective of securing the UK-US base on Diego Garcia well into the next century.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), alluded to the presumptive nominee Marco Rubio’s comments that the deal represents a serious threat to US national security. Does the Minister agree?

[Luke Pollard]

All the representatives of the US security apparatus who have seen the detail of the deal back it. It secures the future of the base and it allays US fears around the future of the base. There has been some barking from the Opposition Front Bench about this, so it is important to say that the base on Diego Garcia is not currently secure for the long term. There are questions over its long-term sovereignty, and people are building support against our sovereignty claim. This deal secures the long-term operation of that base well into the next century.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Having been one of many in this House to have vehemently opposed the ceding of the Chagos Islands without consulting the residents, and having stood in solidarity with those who opposed it, I am anxious to ensure that the Americans take control. In turn, we must offer them support and allow those residents who consider themselves British to be a part of the equation. What steps has the FCDO taken to ensure that the US is aware of the strength of opposition to this decision from those from the Chagos Islands?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his serious question. This deal not only settles some of the outer islands for the Chagossian communities but allows visits to Diego Garcia for the Chagossian communities who were removed in a way that this Government so deeply regret. The detail of the deal is good to secure our national security and US national security, and it takes important steps to recognise and remedy the pain suffered by Chagossian communities.

Contingent Liability Continuation: Ukraine

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Friday 29th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I wish to inform the House that I am today laying a departmental minute to advise of an extension to an existing contingent liability associated with the provision of support to the armed forces of Ukraine.

Since the start of the Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, the UK has been at the forefront of international support to Ukraine, providing essential military capability to the armed forces of Ukraine. We have developed capabilities, working with UK industry, to increase the support to the armed forces of Ukraine to defend against the threat from Russia.

The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the Ministry of Defence will hold, which will provide an indemnity for any sums—including any legal or other associated costs—that UK defence industry might be liable to pay in relation to legal action brought against them by a third party in respect of liabilities arising from any damage to property, injury or loss of life from any unforeseen malfunction of a system operated by the armed forces of Ukraine.

The MOD and other stakeholders are taking all reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of injury and or damage and Defence legal advisers assess the likelihood of any risk arising as low. The maximum contingent liability held against the MOD is unquantifiable and will remain for the full service life of the system.

It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide Members of Parliament an opportunity to raise any objections.

This notification confirms the intention to extend a contingent liability that was initially agreed in July, during the pre-election period when Parliament had been dissolved and the normal process for notification of reportable contingent liabilities could not be followed. Further details are provided in the departmental minute.

[HCWS268]

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

20. What steps the Government are taking to improve recruitment and retention in the armed forces.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

This Government have already begun to modernise and refine our policies and processes to attract and retain the best possible talent in our armed forces. We are delivering for defence, with a 35% pay increase for new recruits and one of the largest pay increases in the last 20 years for existing personnel. We are scrapping over 100 outdated medical policies and setting an ambition to make a conditional offer of employment to candidates within 10 days and a provisional training start date within 30 days.

[Josh Newbury]

From cadets to regulars and reservists, it is clear that we must urgently tackle the recruitment and retention crisis presided over by the last Government. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that over 700 applications are now being reconsidered after the removal of unnecessary red tape blocking some sufferers of hay fever and acne from joining?

[Luke Pollard]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the announcement by the Ministry of Defence that more than 700 applications have been reconsidered following the removal of 100 outdated medical policies, such as those blocking some sufferers of hay fever, eczema and acne. That is a perfect example of how we are fixing the foundations and delivering for defence.

[Mr Holden]

I welcome the Government’s commitment in this area. Since 1999, there have been only six years when the regular forces have grown in size, and all three armed forces are currently below target. Does the Minister believe there will be any year between now and 2030 when there will be a net increase in numbers? Does he have a target for the overall increase in those years? Or is it a bit like 2.5% of GDP, and we will just have to wait and see—“Make me good, but not yet”?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for recruitment. The recruitment target was missed in every single year of the last Conservative Government. It will take us time to fix the process, but we have already made announcements about improving retention and recruitment. We will make further such announcements in the months ahead to ensure that we are dealing with the gaps in our capabilities and improving morale, and that we have forces that are able to deter and defeat aggressors, if necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister to his place.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is nice to be back. On recruitment, many who join the armed forces began their military journey as cadets. The previous Conservative Government’s cadet expansion programme successfully established hundreds of new cadet units in state schools. However, this Labour Government have recently withdrawn a critical £1 million-plus grant that supports cadet instructors in many of the very same state schools. Will the Government as a whole urgently review that very unwelcome decision?

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome my shadow to his place. The Government are committed to cadets. It is a really valuable pastime for young people, which provides skills and opportunities that will last them a lifetime. The Minister for Veterans and People is reviewing the cadet force to ensure that it can continue to play a really important role for young people and support the overall mission of defence.

[Mr Francois]

I welcome the Minister’s kind welcome. On retention, how can we persuade people to remain in our armed forces if they sense that the new Government do not really have their back? In that context, will the Ministry of Defence start to defend its own veterans within Whitehall, and argue that the perverse plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 should be abandoned as soon as possible?

[Luke Pollard]

I had such high hopes for the right hon. Gentleman as my shadow. Let me be very clear: the Government are renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve—a contract that had been eroded over 14 years, with black mould in military accommodation, falling morale and gaps in our capabilities. We will not only support retention and recruitment, but through the work that the Defence Secretary does in Cabinet and the work of the Minister for Veterans and People, we will support our veterans as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I have heard from a number of young people who have tried to join the military, only to be met with long waits for their medical assessment. I understand the need for applicants to be thoroughly assessed, but we are losing valuable recruits due to the processing time. Many cannot afford to wait around and ultimately choose a different path. How is the Minister ensuring that the medical assessment process runs efficiently?

[Luke Pollard]

It is a really important part of the application process that we ensure that the people we accept into our armed forces are medically fit. We have already made progress in this area by removing outdated medical processes, and we are working with colleagues across health to ensure that access to applicants’ medical records is smooth and efficient, reducing the delay between someone saying that they want to serve in our armed forces and that person getting through the door of a training base. There is lots of work to be done, and we hope to make further announcements in due course.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

5. What plans he has to maintain the UK’s role in NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

21. What progress he has made on establishing an independent armed forces commissioner.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a landmark piece of legislation and a major step taken by this Government to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. Second Reading of the Bill will be later today and the commissioner will be a strong independent champion for our armed forces and their families, improving parliamentary oversight and getting to grips with the welfare issues faced by our armed forces.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for all he is doing to improve the lives of our armed forces communities. He will be aware of the deeply distressing accounts of rape and sexual assault from the Defence Committee’s report on women in the armed forces. Will he please revisit our recommendations and those of the Lyons review, so that those serious cases can be heard in civilian, not service courts?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this very serious issue. In opposition we made a commitment that murder, manslaughter and rape cases would be tried in civilian, rather than military courts. I encourage her to keep asking questions as we get closer to the armed forces Bill, which will be an opportunity to put that right.

[Mrs Russell]

The Listening Out Loud Foundation in my constituency is run by Jill and Andy Dolman and works with those who have recently left the forces, often with complex problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. They can provide an excellent insight into how we can better support current and future armed forces personnel. How does the Minister foresee the Armed Forces Commissioner working with small charities such as the Listening Out Loud Foundation, and will he join me in visiting the organisation in the near future?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area and for championing the work of that organisation in her constituency. As we get to the point of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner, I expect that they will have new relationships with service charities and organisations for serving members of our forces and the wider armed forces family. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that, and I look forward to visiting her constituency to meet that organisation in person if I can.

[Sally Jameson]

Will the Minister consider that it is right that the Armed Forces Commissioner be able to challenge Ministers, and increase parliamentary oversight of the issues that face our forces and their families?

[Luke Pollard]

That was a commitment we made in opposition, but it is also a commitment to increased scrutiny that we are proud to make from the Government Dispatch Box. We want to make the case that, to improve morale and to improve the relationship and the contract between the nation and those who serve, having an independent and impartial figure to champion our armed forces and their families will improve not only the lived experience of those people, but the operational capability of our forces, encouraging more people to recognise that someone is genuinely listening to their concerns and that Ministers are prepared to act on them as well. There is a lot of work to be done to renew the contract, but the Armed Forces Commissioner is a key first step.

[Liz Twist]

Last month I visited the Northern Hub for Veterans and Military Families Research at Northumbria University to hear about its suicide prevention work. Its research found that many military families bereaved by suicide felt helpless and unsupported as the wellbeing of their loved ones declined. Does the Minister agree that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is a vital opportunity to deliver better support for families going through difficult times?

[Luke Pollard]

Any death by suicide is a tragedy, though it remains fortunately a rare event in the armed forces community. It is positive to hear of the work by Northumbria University in this area. This month we published a refreshed edition of the armed forces suicide prevention strategy and action plan to enhance the MOD’s commitment to reducing suicide and better supporting those affected by it. A future independent commissioner will have the discretion to investigate welfare matters affecting our forces and will be a direct point of contact for bereaved families of our serving personnel, and that would naturally be a matter worthy of their attention.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Armed Forces Commissioner’s powers of investigation extend to being allowed to visit troops deployed on operations, to question them, and to seize documents?

[Luke Pollard]

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill includes powers for the Armed Forces Commissioner to visit serving personnel, and for UK visits to be unannounced. Due to the logistics of visiting troops abroad, we would expect that such visits would be co-ordinated with the Department. I expect the commissioner to visit our troops serving abroad, and families deployed abroad, and to hear about the particular challenges that being deployed abroad presents for those in uniform and those who love them. We have lots of work to do, and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would raise that issue at the Bill’s Second Reading later today, when I can respond in more detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the questions. In Northern Ireland recruitment is at record levels—there has never needed to be conscription because there were always volunteers. Ever mindful of that, and of the need to ensure that the independent Armed Forces Commissioner has the same responsibility and power in every place in Northern Ireland, will the Minister please indicate strongly, if he can, that every council will be involved, and every person who needs help in Northern Ireland will get it?

[Luke Pollard]

The Armed Forces Commissioner will extend to all parts of the United Kingdom and cover the service welfare matters of UK armed forces personnel and their families, including when deployed abroad. We would expect recommendations to be published directly to Parliament, not through the Ministry of Defence, to ensure the impartiality and independence of the role, and to allow Members of Parliament from all parts of the House to scrutinise recommendations and issues raised by the commissioner. That will include every nation within the United Kingdom.

[Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking with his NATO counterparts to increase co-operation on missile defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T9. As the MP for Sandhurst as well as Bracknell, I am delighted that the first intake of recruits to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst since the general election has hit 101% of its target, despite the wider retention and recruitment crisis. Will the Minister join me in welcoming all the 2024 recruits to my constituency?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I congratulate all those starting their military careers at Sandhurst and across our defence training estate. A career in the armed forces is a good career that supports our national defence, and I encourage more people to look at a good career in the armed forces—whether joining for the first time or rejoining.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On Friday, the UK Defence Journal reported on the activities of the Russian research and intelligence vessel Yantar in the Irish sea, in the vicinity of various cables. This is not new; we had the same thing last year in the North sea and off Shetland. Given the sheer quantity of cables and pipelines now in the seabed, what are the Government doing to ensure that that critical national infrastructure is properly protected?

[Luke Pollard]

Let the House be in no doubt that the United Kingdom and our armed forces will defend our critical national infrastructure undersea cables. We have a strategy and armed forces protecting our cables, and we are working with our allies to do so. I suspect that that will also feature as a recommendation in the strategic defence review when it is published next year.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

With our domestic air defences under increased scrutiny, will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to strengthen them and give assurances that our Government understand that our forces will need the resources available to secure our skies?