Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I begin by reiterating that Conservative Members approach this Bill as critical friends, with a commitment to strengthening its impact for those who serve this country so bravely. This has been a good-quality debate, conducted in a notably bipartisan spirit. Another sub-theme has been the benign presence of a former Royal Marine mafia—they have been prevalent throughout the debate, from the Veterans Minister himself downwards. For the record, the Veterans Minister was present for the opening speeches, even though he was not allowed to contribute.

We have had a number of extremely good Back-Bench speeches, from the hon. Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and—last but not least—for Aldershot (Alex Baker), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed).

I am particularly indebted to the hon. Member for Bracknell, who mentioned that he has the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in his constituency. In tonight’s debate, a number of tributes were paid by hon. Members who have relatives who serve in the armed forces. It is greatly to the House’s credit that we now have so many MPs who have either served in the armed forces, or have loved ones who do. My godson, Second Lieutenant Alexander Blackwell, passed out from the sovereign’s parade at RMA Sandhurst in August and is now a second lieutenant commissioned into the regular Army. I place on the record that I am as proud of him as all other hon. Members are of their family members.

We also had a very accomplished maiden speech from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Not only was she lucid and entertaining, but it was the first occasion in my 23 years in this place on which I have known anyone to get Dracula into a maiden speech—she really got her teeth into it. More seriously, she invoked the memory of our fallen comrade Jo Cox and quite rightly pointed to her plaque, which is on the wall behind me. Of course, Jo is famous for her suggestion that as Members of Parliament, we have more in common than divides us. That was absolutely the spirit of this evening’s very good debate.

At the core of this Bill, as I am sure the Minister will agree, lies a commitment to supporting our armed forces personnel. They deserve a system that not only honours their service, but ensures accountability and fairness in addressing their legitimate concerns. The Bill proposes a model similar to the German system, whereby the commissioner has what we might characterise as Ofsted-like powers, including the ability to enter military sites and access pertinent information for investigations. If executed correctly, this could enhance oversight, transparency and the lived experience of our servicemen and women, strengthening public confidence in how their issues are addressed. A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner with the right powers could be a powerful voice for our service personnel and veterans—I will come back to the topic of veterans—addressing their concerns fairly, transparently and promptly. We believe that this vision deserves cross-party support.

However, there are details in the Bill that we intend to examine closely. We must ensure that it truly delivers on its promises without adding unnecessary complexity to the existing oversight system. As we support the vision of the Bill, we also have a duty to scrutinise how this new role will be implemented, how it will integrate into the current framework, and its implications for those already navigating the armed forces complaints system. In short, the challenge for Ministers will be to convince armed forces personnel and their families that this new legislation will represent real change, and will not just mean replacing the nameplate outside the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a new one that says “Armed Forces Commissioner”. We support the vision, but the proof of the pudding really will be in the eating.

I have questions that I hope the Minister will address in his winding-up speech. First, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have concerns regarding the transition of cases outstanding with the Service Complaints Ombudsman, whose office will be abolished via clause 1. Some of those cases have been open for a considerable time, causing significant stress and frustration to those affected. Will the Minister explain what will happen to the many cases still outstanding with the current ombudsman? Will they be transferred automatically to the new commissioner? If so, what assurances can he give that the transition, which will follow Royal Assent, will not lead to further delays or the loss of critical information? Our service personnel deserve timely resolutions. Indeed, we must avoid any risk of cases slipping through the cracks during the handover. I hope he will accept that that is a perfectly legitimate concern.

Secondly, what is the timeline for establishing the new commissioner role? Do the Government expect to have the commissioner in place by the time the strategic defence review reports in the first half of next year? Some cynics are already suggesting that that will be in late June 2025. If we could have confirmation on the timeline, that would be helpful.

Thirdly, I come to financial questions. What will be the true cost of establishing and maintaining the commissioner? Paragraph 11(1) of proposed new schedule 14ZA to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states:

“The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner.”

What budget has been allocated to the commissioner’s office for 2024-25? Will that come from the MOD’s budget or from the Cabinet Office? Wherever it comes from, how much money are we talking about? The figure of £5 million has been mentioned a couple of times this evening; I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. On the financial implications, how will that funding affect other essential services? As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, defence budgets are continually stretched.

Fourthly, another critical area on which we would like further clarity is the authority that the commissioner will hold. Will this individual have the autonomy needed to genuinely advocate for our forces without interference? That point was stressed by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), in his very good contribution. How will the commissioner interact with the Defence Committee? The Secretary of State confirmed in his opening remarks that the Defence Committee will be involved in the appointment process. Will it have a veto on a proposed appointee if, for whatever reason, it has concerns that they might not be suitable? It is crucial that the Bill brings about measurable change that is beneficial to our service personnel. The proposal in the Bill that thematic reports be laid before Parliament each year is welcomed by the Opposition.

Finally, as a number of hon. Members have asked, what about veterans? Clause 4 will amend the Armed Forces Act 2006 to allow the commissioner to investigate a

“general service welfare matter…which, in the Commissioner’s opinion…arises in connection with the ongoing service of persons subject to service law…or relevant family members.”

There is no direct reference to veterans, even though by definition they previously served in the armed forces, some of them for many years. Given that veterans also experience welfare issues—not least to do with the payment of pensions or outstanding claims from the armed forces compensation scheme—is there scope for allowing the new commissioner to take responsibility for examining those issues, too?

The Royal British Legion states in its very good briefing note on the Bill:

“RBL and Poppyscotland would like clarity on how the Armed Forces Commissioner will interact with the existing Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the proposed National Veterans’ Commissioner.”

When the Minister sums up, will he explain what the relationship will be between the new armed forces commissioner and the proposed national veterans commissioner? While he is at it, will he update us on the progress on the national veterans commissioner? On a related point, the well-respected Northern Ireland veterans commissioner Danny Kinahan resigned recently, for reasons that have not been made entirely clear. Will the Minister update the House on why he resigned, and what arrangements have been put in place for his replacement?

As I have outlined, the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill represents an opportunity to enhance the support and advocacy that we provide to our armed forces. There is potential for the Bill to address some of the most pressing issues facing service personnel today, and to offer essential accountability and transparency to those who sacrifice so much in the service of our nation. It is crucial that we get this right. We are committed to working with the Government to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise. We owe it to our armed forces to scrutinise the details thoroughly, so that this legislation does not become another layer of oversight that complicates the process, but rather provides streamlined and meaningful support.

By addressing the issues we have raised today—the transition of outstanding ombudsman cases, the urgency of the timeline, the potential costs, the commissioner’s authority and the scope of support for veterans—we can avoid pitfalls. As we move forward and the Bill enters Committee, we will continue to work constructively with the Government in, I hope, the same bipartisan spirit that the whole House has clearly embodied this evening, pushing for clarity and advocating for the changes needed to make this legislation as truly impactful as I am sure that the Government and the Minister intend it to be. Our forces deserve nothing less. We stand ready to collaborate on securing a fair, accountable and effective system that upholds the highest standards for those who are serving and who have served, and their families. We thank them for their service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the important role that families play in supporting not just serving personnel but veterans. I am grateful to him for mentioning families, and to a number of other Members who spoke passionately about that important role that they play and the need for the commissioner to be open to representations from family members. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Slough, who spoke about bereaved families in an intervention during the Secretary of State’s speech. The Bill does not give an exact definition of family members; that will be included in secondary legislation that will be published between the House of Commons and House of Lords stages. I am glad that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about kinship carers, and I should be happy to discuss them with her. We want to get this right, and putting such a definition in the Bill will enable it to be locked in. I want Members on both sides of the House to feel empowered to challenge us and help us to provide that definition, so that the Bill is drafted adequately to help serving personnel and their families to deal with service life—and that must include all the shapes and sizes of families as they exist today.

A number of Members mentioned the spending of 2.5% of GDP on defence, to which the Government are committed. The Bill states explicitly that the Armed Forces Commissioner will deal with general service welfare matters. I think it important for me to put that on record, because the commissioner will be dealing with the lived experience of those who serve and their families. This will not involve looking into “Secret Squirrel” operations or operational deployments, or the spending of 2.5%, 2.4% or any other figure; it will involve looking specifically at the welfare of those who serve. However, I realise that a number of Members want to make points about the 2.5%, and I will continue to encourage them to do so. I hope that they also welcome the extra £3 billion for defence that was announced in the Budget only a few weeks ago.

Several Members spoke about the armed forces covenant and this new Government’s manifesto commitment to putting it fully into law. I reassure them that the determination to do that is strong in the ministerial team. The Defence Secretary himself has made it clear that he wants it to be included in the armed forces Bill, which is the next piece of legislation on which the MOD will be working. I am grateful to the Members who spoke so passionately about the importance of the covenant in their constituencies. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Hartlepool in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View, spoke with passion about armed forces champions. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View and I share a brilliant armed forces champion in Councillor Pauline Murphy, and her determination and fierce approach to protecting and supporting the armed forces family are precisely what I hope to see in the Armed Forces Commissioner, because we need someone who will focus relentlessly on improving service life.

[Mr Francois]

When the Bill goes into Committee next month we shall be able to explore these issues in more detail, but—particularly for the benefit of the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland—will the Minister, before he sits down, update the House on what point we have reached in respect of the national veterans commissioner?

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman may have missed my earlier suggestion that Members should take up their points with the Minister for Veterans and People, because this Bill is about serving personnel. However, I recognise the genuine concern felt by the organisations that he has mentioned, and I encourage him to speak to the Veterans Minister, who is currently looking at representation for veterans. I expect the commissioner to have relationships with a host of organisations across the country, and I am happy for that to be picked up.

The hon. Member for Strangford asked serious questions—as I believe did the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford—about what will happen with a complaint being processed by the current Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces that is transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner. If it is a service complaint, and the complaint relates to a period of service and was raised within the time limit, the Armed Forces Commissioner will continue to investigate even if the complainant has left the forces. That is the same as the current SCOAF position. For new Armed Forces Commissioner investigations, it will be at the discretion of the commissioner whether to continue the investigation, bearing in mind that their investigations will be largely thematic, rather than picking up individual cases. I hope that reassures Members that the work will continue and any complaint currently being handled by the SCOAF will be continued.

That gives me a good opportunity to thank our current SCOAF, Mariette Hughes, and her team for their work. The Bill is designed deliberately not to adjust the service complaints system. The opportunity to do so in legislation may exist in an armed forces Bill, and I am happy to speak to Members who have concerns about the legislation relating to service complaints so that we can make sure that any edits required are included in the next such Bill.

A number of Members asked who can raise a complaint with the Armed Forces Commissioner. I am pleased to confirm that whether someone is a regular, a reserve, a recruit or a re-joiner, they will be able to raise an issue with the commissioner, as will family members of those people, in relation to the commissioner’s investigation work. That relates to the rank and grade question. We expect everyone, especially within defence, to treat the Armed Forces Commissioner with respect. The Secretary of State will be required by law to assist the commissioner with their investigations, and the appointment process that we are seeking to start will be for a very senior appointment. I reassure colleagues that the commissioner will require security clearance at a high level, because of the visits that they may make to military establishments, and they will be bound by the Official Secrets Act. Any investigation and anything they come across on their base visits will be held in the secrecy and at the classification that it deserves.

There were a number of questions about digital access. It will be up to the commissioner to decide how people will be able to raise an issue with them, rather than for us to specify it in the Bill, but I understand the issues that colleagues have raised and I would expect the commissioner to be fully accessible on various platforms, both digital and non-digital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked the devolution question. As this is a reserved matter, it is the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament to deal with it here. However, it is conceivable that the Armed Forces Commissioner may investigate an issue that is the responsibility of the Westminster Government in England but is devolved to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, we anticipate that the Armed Forces Commissioner would engage with devolved Assemblies and Administrations, and I would expect a relationship to be formed between them over time so that any issues could be addressed fully. The legislation will be for the MOD to apply, and reports will ultimately flow through the House of Commons Defence Committee, but I recognise what my hon. Friend said and I hope that, through the operation of the Bill, that will be developed.

I am really grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for joining me in one of my nerdy pursuits in defence legislation and asking why Gibraltar is not covered. As a former Defence Minister, he will know that the reason Gibraltar is often excluded from defence legislation, separate from other overseas territories, is that it has an agreement with the United Kingdom to replicate the Armed Forces Act in its own legislation, but serving personnel and their families stationed in Gibraltar should be in no doubt that they will be able to access the Armed Forces Commissioner. I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that clause 6(1) clearly sets out that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland and, indeed, all members of our United Kingdom family of nations.

A number of colleagues mentioned the commissioner’s budget. The budget has been modelled on input from the German model. That is why we are proposing an increase from the current SCOAF budget to £4.5 million to £5.5 million. The shadow Minister wondered why that figure arose a few times in the debate. If he turns to page 12 of the explanatory notes, he will see that it says “£4.5 - £5.5m”. I suspect that is the reason why so many Members raised the figure, but it will be for the commissioner to determine how many staff they wish to employ, in what roles and how the budget is allocated.

The Chair of the Defence Committee asked how the Bill sits with our broader strategy for our armed forces personnel. This is our first step in our work of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. It is exactly right, as was mentioned earlier, that it forms only one part of what we have announced. The wraparound childcare announcement that the Secretary of State made at the weekend is a good example of the direction of travel that people serving in our armed forces should expect from this Government: a clear direction that says we will look not only at the kit, capabilities and doctrine in the strategic defence review, but at the lived experience for each and every one who serves, to see how we can improve it. That relates to the broader strategy about how we can measure success—not only in terms of the lived experience improvements and the additional scrutiny of such issues, but the opportunity for us to do that.

I may disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North on where the home of the Royal Navy is, as I represent Devonport in Plymouth, but I am grateful for all the contributions. Finally, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who summed up the debate very well when she said that armed forces personnel

“just want the basic equipment that they need to be able to do their jobs and a good life for their families…because if they are willing to fight for us, it is the very least that we can do.”

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2024.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jeff Smith.)

Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

A lot of Members are unused to Bill Committees, so if you want to speak, put up your hand in good time, the Clerk will let me know and we will get everyone in. I call Mark Francois.

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

Q Good morning, and thank you to the witness for your time today. You describe the Bill as “positive”. In your opinion, what are the main differences between your position and that of the commissioner, as proposed in the legislation? How do you see those as advantageous?

Mariette Hughes: My remit is extremely narrow. It does what it needs to do in providing oversight of the service complaints system, but it restricts me and those who work in my office to looking only at issues related to service complaints—those complaints that have been through the system and applications that have been made directly to my office.

We know that one issue is that not enough people complain. Between the number of people who report that they experience poor behaviours or unacceptable things in the workplace and the number of people who complain and come through to my office is a huge delta. We are not able to look into the reasons why. The ability to look behind those issues raised as pure service complaints is incredibly advantageous.

For me, there is also an element of being able to look at the further level of “So what?” Too many times when we look at a service complaint, we are considering whether the individual has been wronged because of whether or not a policy has been applied correctly to them, and that is as far as our analysis can go. What the Bill will provide is the ability to go behind that to say, “Does this policy provide the best for our service personnel in terms of their welfare?” Those are the key issues for me.

[Mr Francois]

Q When you were doing your role, would you have preferred the opportunity to do the thematic reports envisaged in the Bill?

Mariette Hughes: Yes, absolutely. When I last spoke in front of the Defence Committee, we mentioned that we would like those powers, and my predecessor had asked for them as well. We were told previously that until we got our backlog and performance sorted, they would not be able to be extended to us, but that is the direction we have been pushing in. We have been asking for them for years, and we would be very excited about it.

[Mr Francois]

Q Lastly, what is your current backlog of complaints? We are working on the assumption that when the roles transition, anything that is metaphorically in your in-tray will transfer across to the commissioner. As of today, how many legacy cases—if we can call them that—do you envisage transferring across to the new organisation?

Mariette Hughes: I say this with a pinch of salt because I have not logged on this morning to check whether we have had any new applications, but the backlog is zero. We have around 30 cases in active investigation. Any new cases coming into my office are instantly allocated out. We have brought the backlog down to nothing, and we are at 100% timeliness.

[Mr Francois]

Q Having served on the Defence Committee and interviewed your predecessors, but not you, I commend you on that. Clearly, a lot of work has been done to catch up. There were hundreds before, so for the record, congratulations if you are down to just 30 live cases.

Mariette Hughes: Thank you. It has been very important to us. When I took on the role, the wait time for individuals to have their cases looked at by me was around nine months. When we are the organisation holding the services to account for how swiftly they deal with complaints, that does not fly very well. If we are going to be the champion of what good looks like, we have to be able to demonstrate that we can apply those lessons to ourselves to make the services trust us, so I am pleased that we have been able to do that over the last three years.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you very much.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, and thank you for joining us. On the point about transfer, how do you envisage the transfer of staff from the existing system operating? I have just a couple of little points after that.

Mariette Hughes: One of my main concerns is ensuring a smooth transition. My staff are quite excited for the new remit. Again, we as an organisation have been pushing for it for a while, but naturally there is consternation and a bit of anxiety about what it means for them. Broadly under the scope of the legislation, if the powers and functions of the ombudsman are simply lifting and shifting to the commissioner role, I anticipate that the majority of my staff will continue operating as usual.

It is key for us that we do not disrupt the good work that has been happening. A lot of my staff have been at the organisation longer than I have, and they remember when the backlog was even worse. They are the ones who have done the work and delivered that performance. It would be absolutely devastating for them to see it disrupted, so ensuring that they have somewhere to operate from, have clear legislation, understand what they are able to do and can just continue as usual will be key.

The other element to be considered is the other side of our business—those who look after our finance, IT and stats. Their roles will potentially need to expand to cover more under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, and that is what needs to be established through a transitionary period.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Ted Arnold, senior public affairs and policy manager for Help for Heroes, and Angela Kitching, director of campaigns, policy and research for the Royal British Legion. For this panel we have until 10.40 am. Could the panel introduce themselves?

Angela Kitching: Thank you for inviting us to give evidence. I am Angela Kitching, the campaigns, policy and research director for the Royal British Legion. We have been holding focus groups on the Bill with members of the armed forces community and their families—those who are currently serving—to see what their views are. Some of the interesting points that we would like to draw out today are around how we can measure the impact of the role, and what the proper balance is between thematic and individual complaints, given the new scope of the role. We would also like to explore the question of relevant family members and who will be able to raise complaints.

Ted Arnold: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence this morning. My name is Ted Arnold, and I am the senior policy and public affairs manager at Help for Heroes. We are a veterans’ charity, supporting veterans and their families and I will very much be making comments from that perspective. We very much welcome the Bill and we see the key underlying principle as calling for a more transparent culture to make it harder for Defence to hide embedded problems. That is a conversation that we want very much to be a part of. We believe the veteran community has substantial insights to offer to that conversation, as we seek to improve the lives of serving personnel who one day will become veterans themselves.

[Mr Francois]

Q Good morning to both of you. Thank you for joining us. First, to the Royal British Legion, your briefing note makes a number of positive suggestions about the Bill. You say quite a bit about the armed forces covenant and the duty that that places upon Government and parliamentarians. How, if at all, do you think the new role of the commissioner will help to strengthen our obligations under the covenant?

Angela Kitching: As colleagues will know, the covenant is the promise that the Government make on behalf of the nation to those who serve and who have served, their families and the bereaved. I think the role of the commissioner can help to give that some teeth. Hopefully, the way that the welfare remit is written will go beyond the current legal duties under the covenant and will allow the commissioner to consider thematic issues where service personnel and their families face significant problems.

I hope that in places where the covenant does not have legal force, such as Northern Ireland, the commissioner will be able to bring parties together and co-ordinate a proper response from local authorities or national Governments to improve the experience of service personnel and their families.

I particularly want us to think about the position of the bereaved, who are often not well considered in terms of the covenant. They are one of the groups of people who are supposed to be given special consideration under the covenant, yet they are often missed out when local authorities and others plan their services related to the covenant. I hope that, through the definition of “relevant family members”, the commissioner will be able to bring to the fore some of the experiences of the bereaved community.

[Mr Francois]

Q The Bill focuses on serving personnel; what, if anything, do you think the commissioner will be able to do for veterans? As drafted, the legislation does not give the commissioner much of a role in regard to veterans, and some people would argue that that is a lacuna in the Bill. What is what is the RBL’s perspective on that?

Angela Kitching: If the powers transfer as they are at the moment, veterans who have experienced a problem in service and raised that through the service complaints system will, we hope, be able to continue to pursue their individual cases. We would like clarity on that point, because I feel it was not well explained on Second Reading.

In terms of the commissioner’s relationships, it is really important that they think about their relationships with the veterans commissioners and the veterans advisory and pensions groups that exist around the country. If Haythornthwaite is to be properly implemented, it is going to be a spectrum of service where people pass from serving into reserve and into veteran, and back again, so it will be really important to spot the themes to make sure that we have a group of people in the armed forces community who can rely on the knowledge that they will be well treated when they are in a serving scenario.

[Mr Francois]

Q I have one more question on that subject. One issue that cropped up on Second Reading was the proposed UK veterans commissioner and how, if at all, this commissioner would interact with that commissioner. It is not clear how much progress has been made on the veterans commissioner; what is the RBL’s perspective on that? Do you have any concerns about the rate of progress on the UK-wide veterans commissioner?

Angela Kitching: Yes. You will be aware that that was an open advert and people were being invited to apply just prior to the election. We have not yet heard an update on what will happen to that role. We think it is really important that there is a national veterans commissioner, as described. Clearly, the Armed Forces Commissioner will have a wider, deeper and better resourced role than any of the other commissioners. I think a lot could be learned, particularly from the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, because they report directly to Parliament. The Armed Forces Commissioner can look to that community of commissioners regularly to make sure that they pick up issues as people are leaving service.

[Mr Francois]

Q Let me turn to Help for Heroes. For the record, Mr Arnold, I had the privilege of knowing Bryn Parry, who is of course no longer with us. We still think of his widow, Emma. He was an exceptional man and he did a great thing.

What is Help for Heroes’ perspective on some of the veterans’ issues that I have just put to the RBL, please?

Ted Arnold: To build on what Angela said, in our experience, and from what we are told, the military works well and looks after its own until there is a problem in service, be it injury or illness, when it often closes ranks, withholds vital information, or provides inconsistent or varied support.

The last part of the mantra, “Join well, serve well, leave well”, is often an afterthought, particularly for the wounded, injured and sick. Very much a key message from our beneficiaries relates to that variability, inconsistency and uncertainty during their service, and particularly at the point of discharge and building up to transition. For instance, the German model has looked at the issues of transition out of service, and how those policies and procedures would impact personnel post service. Veterans can probably talk with greater openness about their experiences with their service, with the benefit of distance and hindsight, to really crack some of those issues open. The Minister was right to point out on Second Reading that the agencies and services in place are very different for veterans, and it is important to make that distinction, but a lot of these issues stem from the point of discharge or transition.

One issue on which we have been working closely with the Veterans Minister is the call for an independent review into the medical discharge process. We believe that the policies and processes are very much there but are followed inconsistently across the three services, or not followed properly by the chain of command. Building on the other thematic reviews, in regard to issues such as welfare more broadly, leadership style or elements of training, kit or housing, we believe that we hold a wealth of experience, and a wealth of data and evidence, from that community that we would very much like to build into those thematic reviews.

[Mr Francois]

Q Lastly, on the veterans point, most local authorities, in accordance with the covenant, have appointed armed forces champions, but I think it is probably true to say—this is not a party political point—that that is very patchy across different local authorities. Some, bluntly, pay lip service but do not really make a lot of difference for veterans. Others really do go the extra mile, particularly in the allocation of social housing. What is your experience, as Help for Heroes, of how that system works at the local government level?

Ted Arnold: I think we would broadly say something similar. It is a postcode lottery in terms of support and how the covenant is applied, and there are inconsistencies with the armed forces champions. Some areas are very good—they have some density of serving personnel or veterans, and they are very aligned with some of those issues—and others less so. That seeps into the whole culture, and it touches on a previous point made by the ombudsman about having someone else to advocate on your behalf on those issues, be it getting the right welfare support or getting the right healthcare support. For many, the armed forces champion is seen as that point, but others have to draw on family and the charity sector to get access to the support that they need.

[Graeme Downie]

Q I want to raise two points, and the first is mostly for Angela, from the issues you have been discussing in the focus groups. Do you feel that the terminology in clause 4 on general service welfare is appropriate and suitable for purpose? First of all, do you feel that the term “general service welfare” itself covers the correct areas? Similarly, in subsection (2) of new section 340IA, which the Bill will insert into the Armed Forces Act 2006, do we feel that words such as “may materially affect” welfare are the correct terminology? Do we feel that is sufficient?

In subsection (3) of that new section, do we feel that a “relevant family member” is correctly drawn? Further down, subsection (7) of the new section states that the Secretary of State will give the commissioner “reasonable assistance”. From the focus groups and the work you have done with your members, is there a feeling that that is the correct terminology? Will that capture everything that they feel the commissioner needs to be involved in, or is there any work that can be done to broaden or tighten some of those definitions?

Angela Kitching: I will do my best with that technical question. I think welfare is a well understood term in the armed forces community. Calling out particular experiences of discrimination, bullying and harassment is useful, because that is not held to be a welfare issue; it is held to be an employment and discrimination issue. On that one, that feels appropriate.

The second part that you raised was about a relevant family member. That really does need significant further exploration in Committee, and further definition. I understand that the Government intend to publish regulations when the Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords, but understanding what a “relevant family member” is has been a really disputed point in the armed forces community. For example, the bereaved parents of people who have lost their service person often feel that they are not included in the world of the armed forces community, and it is the same for the siblings of those who are bereaved. The families of non-UK personnel who are not resident in the UK also often feel outside the environment. The issue is about understanding who a relevant family member is, and being open to the fact that that person could raise relevant information.

Establishing really clearly whether somebody can raise a complaint or a concern—three terms are being used, “complaint”, “concern” and “issue”—and getting clarity over who is allowed to do what is extremely important, because otherwise it will unduly raise people’s expectations that they will be able to follow something through in a formal process, when what they are being invited to do is offer additional information for a thematic review. We need absolute clarity in the way that is communicated to the armed forces community—who has right to a complaint versus who is able to raise a concern or issue more broadly.

The only other thing I would mention is that the process will be everything. I was surprised by the focus groups: we thought that we would collect information about issues that people were likely to want to raise with the commissioner if their scope were broadened, but what people wanted to talk about was how safe they would feel in the process—would they be prepared to raise something, would they be able to do it jointly as the commissioner just raised, would family members feel that they were able to raise concerns and would it affect their person’s career progression or ability to continue to make progress?

There is a high level of distrust in certain areas of current service complaints, for example service-to-type complaints, where people are making accommodation complaints. At the moment, there is already a three-stage process that has to be closed before someone is able to approach the ombudsman. The middle section of that process is so overwhelmed at the moment that people are getting standard messages to say, “We are not able to progress your complaint on the current timelines.” That in itself would be a reason for somebody to be allowed to go to the ombudsman, but they will already have been through an extensive paperwork process to try to pursue their individual complaint before they get to the stage where the commissioner is reviewing the process.

It is getting the balance of expectation right for individuals who are serving and their family members of whether this is likely to be effective and get faster, or whether thematic reviews would be a better place to put their efforts if they have a broader based complaint such as an accommodation issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity, and Lieutenant General Sir Nicholas Pope, chair of the Confederation of Service Charities. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Could our witnesses introduce themselves, perhaps saying a bit about themselves and what they do?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Good morning, sirs and ma’ams. I am Andrew Gregory. I spent 35 years in the Royal Artillery in the British Army. My last three years were as Chief of Defence People in the Ministry of Defence—very much looking at these sorts of areas —during which the Service Complaints Commissioner became the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so I have seen some of the transition. I left the military in 2016 and have been the controller and chief executive of SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity since then. I am also a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which runs the armed forces parliamentary scheme.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Nick Pope. I know some members of the Committee. I was an Army officer for 39 years—I am struck by this witness panel’s age compared with the previous panel’s. I finished in my job as effectively the Army’s second in command, so I dealt with the likes of Mariette and Nicola from the Service Complaints Ombudsman from a single-service perspective. As the Army’s 2IC, I was the principal personnel officer for the Army. I left the Army in 2019 and am now chair of the Confederation of Service Charities, Cobseo. A couple of years ago, I also helped Rick Haythornthwaite to produce the Haythornthwaite review of the armed forces community, which was probably the first time in a generation that we had had a systemic look at the people function for the armed forces. So I sit here in three guises to answer your questions.

[Mr Francois]

Q Generals, good morning. Nick, could you give us some idea of how many service charities Cobseo now covers and some idea of the different topics? I know you have banded them together; how does that work? When you have done that, could you explain the charitable sector’s broad view—if it is possible for so many different charities, large and small, to have a collective view—of the Bill and any strengths and weaknesses therein? Please take it in those three parts.

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I must start by commending you for the “Filling the Ranks” report, which I have mentioned here before, and which was one of our opportunities to look at the way we carry out armed forces recruitment. I still go back to that report and read it by my bedside table.

We believe there are currently around 1,735 military service charities. Some people would say, “Golly, that’s an awful lot,” but we are the one percenters—there are 160,000 charities in the UK and about 1,700 military service charities. The first thing to say is that whether that is too much or too little is irrelevant, because each charity is answerable through its board and trustees to the Charity Commission. We are not stuck with the number, because it changes, but that is the number of charities.

All charities are not the same. Of that number, a vast swathe is focused on heritage, museums and monuments, or service funds—ship stations and aircraft stations. About 500 really cover welfare and benevolence—the kinds of military charity organisations you would typically think of. Of the 500, about 25 raise about 90% of the money. If you are going to focus on money and impact at the national level, the likes of Andrew in SSAFA, the Royal British Legion or Help for Heroes are the typical charities you would think of.

That is not to decry the enormous contribution made by smaller charities. At local level, a fantastic amount of work is done, if you are thinking of a drop-in centre or breakfast club—a means of bringing together veterans, particularly for comradeship and belonging—but my point is that the word “charity” covers a smorgasbord of activities.

In the sector, we tend to slice and dice in how we bring our charities together through what are known as clusters or communities of interest, where like-minded charities come together to talk about, for example, mental health, housing or employment or issues affecting non-UK or female personnel, so we use the charity sector to think thematically about issues. Sectorally, we have an executive committee that Andrew sits on, alongside 16 other chief executives—it is like a United Nations council—where we try to garner the systemic issues across the sector. It is right to say that there is not a sector view, but what the sector can do is bring together information to say, “These are the kinds of views that exist across the military charity sector.”

It is probably also fair to say that the sector focuses not exclusively but predominantly on the veterans community, albeit some charities also link back into serving personnel. We tend not to think about either veterans or serving personnel; we try to use the nomenclature of “the armed forces community”, because it picks up the bereaved, spouses, dependants—the entire gamut of those who exist in that community. At the broadest, you might say that around 6 million or 7 million people, so gusting 10% of the UK population, have some relationship with the armed forces. That is a large number.

[Mr Francois]

Q That is a good description of the breadth of the waterfront that Cobseo covers—thank you. Are there any particular strengths or weaknesses in the Bill that you, on behalf of Cobseo, would like to highlight to the Committee before we debate it on Thursday?

Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I am well aware, having read the Second Reading Hansard scripts, that most of the issues I cover will not be unfamiliar to you all. The sector welcomes the Bill and it welcomes the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner. As we approach the selection of the commissioner and further determination of the scope, we will be looking to pick up on some of the issues you have talked about with regard to independence and the boundary between the armed forces serving community and those who have served. We are interested in the ambit and the responsibilities of the commissioner function. From a selfish, sectoral perspective, we are also interested in the way in which we as a stakeholder will engage with the commissioner. Those are the kinds of activities that we are looking at.

[Mr Francois]

Q Thank you very much. General Gregory, could you answer a similar question on behalf of SSAFA? I am sure you looked at the Second Reading report, too; I know you are a very thorough chap. Are there any strengths or weaknesses in the Bill that you would like to highlight to the Committee?

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: First, for those who do not know, I will highlight that SSAFA is just coming up to 140 years old. It was formed in 1885 as the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Families Association. Although Nick says that military charities have mainly focused on the veterans community, we actually do a lot of work in the serving community in many different ways. I will not expand on that now.

Like Nick, I have read the Hansard report. Initially, I was concerned that the commissioner would potentially undermine the chain of command, but I am not concerned any more. I have had a good session with the Minister for the Armed Forces—we both have—and I am reassured on that. The challenge, as Nick has talked about, is that there is a continuum running from before people join the armed forces to when they are thinking about it, to their first day of service, through their service, to their departure and to their subsequent life. Trying to state that the commissioner will look at only the time when people are subject to military law, regular and reservist, will be quite difficult. You cannot divorce some of the consequences of military service from welfare issues within and during military service.

I want to go back to Haythornthwaite and some of the propositions being considered as part of the defence review, particularly the people proposition. The review is quite rightly looking at what we are choosing to call one defence—people in uniform, full and part time, people not in uniform, full and part time, or people delivering to defence outputs. That is absolutely right. That is exactly the model that should be used, but potentially the commissioners will look at only a part of that ability to deliver defence outputs. My only concern is that the commissioner should be looking at how best to sustain defence outputs. The person is tasked to look at welfare issues. I worry that there are some artificial divides that may not help the person do their work.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you very much.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Q Sir Andrew, I work closely with SSAFA. You have some fantastic volunteers in Norfolk. Thank you for the work your organisation does.

Lt General Sir Andrew Gregory: Thank you very much.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q56 Abby, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?

Abby Dryden: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Abby Dryden. I am the chief executive of the Defence Medical Welfare Service.

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

Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Ms Dryden. We have asked a number of other witnesses who appeared before us this morning a similar question: could you give us your overview of the Bill from the DMWS perspective and tell us what advantages you think it might provide for service personnel and their families? Do you think there are any weaknesses in the Bill that could be improved when we debate it on Thursday? It is a very open question.

Abby Dryden: I have had time to consider the Library paper and look at the Bill, and the position of my organisation, DMWS, is that if there is anything the commissioner could add to the positive experience individuals have of military service, we are supportive of that. We do not really maintain a position on existing service provision; we are quite neutral in our view in general. Our main interest is welfare delivery for service personnel in secondary care settings. If the commissioner was able to support some of the issues we identify and create a situation where armed forces personnel felt better supported, or there was increased or enhanced support for them in those settings, we would be supportive. Beyond that, I do not think we have a particular view one way or the other on the Bill itself.

[Mr Francois]

Q Following on from your answer, how do you think armed forces personnel and their families need to be better supported than they are at present?

Abby Dryden: Since 2018, we have collected detailed evidence on the experience that armed forces personnel have while they are in secondary care settings. We normally monitor the themes and trends that are identified by the people we work closely with. We identify about 10 trends each year, and we look at how we, as an organisation, and our funders can better understand how military personnel can be supported. In terms of the trends that we have identified, we usually find topics such as receiving care that is understanding of the unique position that armed forces personnel can find themselves in, the settings in which they receive care, and understanding that it is a highly mobile population.

We often deal with people who have complex family arrangements or children with special educational needs, for example, and military personnel who are quite badly injured. In those circumstances, it is important to understand that service life is a hugely positive experience for many people, but there are certain times when an enhanced service provision would be beneficial. That could be when admissions to hospital take place or when there is an increased pressure on the family as a whole. In terms of understanding how armed forces personnel could be better supported, that would be very useful. What would also be useful for armed forces personnel is an understanding that creating a positive narrative—or mentioning some of the positives of service life—is important, as much as it is important to identify the negatives.

[Mr Francois]

Q You mentioned special educational needs. Historically, it has been an issue that a service family may sometimes have to work for several years to get a statement for an SEN child. We now call it an education, health and care plan, but it was a statement in old money. It might take a family two years to get that from their local education authority. As an example, let us say it is the Wiltshire LEA if they are based at Tidworth. However, if they are then posted to Catterick, they have to go back to square one—or they did have to—in order to start that whole very painful journey again.

We are all constituency MPs here, so we all know how difficult it can be. It is not a partisan point at all. Has there been any progress on that issue at all over the past couple of years, and if not, is it an issue that we should raise on Thursday?

Abby Dryden: I think progress has been made, but there is a need for awareness of the fact that we are dealing with a highly mobile population, which is restricted by procedural requirements. Again, it is probably similar to some of the issues that we deal with in relation to care and treatment for certain medical conditions, which might be at the top of lists, then fall down to the bottom again when families change location. I would say that yes, generally, progress has been made in a moderate fashion. However, a lot of the time, there is nothing that helps people dealing with different bodies, such as NHS trusts or local authorities, which should be talking to one another in a meaningful way and identifying that progress has been made in one area—for example, that an achievement of a special educational needs status has been identified—and porting it over to another area. There is progress to be made.

In our organisation, the welfare officers work predominantly with serving personnel, and a big part of what they do is maintaining the momentum for the family and their progress through systems and processes, in both NHS and educational settings.

[Mr Francois]

One of the fundamental principles of the armed forces covenant is that there should be no disadvantage as a result of service.

Abby Dryden: Yes, absolutely.

[Mr Francois]

If you are saying that the situation has got a bit better, that is encouraging, but I think you are also implying that there is more work to be done. We might want to explore that on Thursday under the “General service welfare” part of the Bill.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

Q Do you have any concerns about the transition from the ombudsman to the new commissioner?

Abby Dryden: I do not have any specific concerns about that. I would generally have concerns about any change in process, as the shortcomings of a process can sometimes be identified quite easily, but it can be quite difficult to create something in its place that functions effectively from the start. I would just be concerned about the transition, but I would not have any specific concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay. I am sure that has covered you. For the record, could all the witnesses please introduce themselves?

Col. Darren Doherty: I am Darren Doherty. I am the director of grants and welfare at the Army Benevolent Fund and am representing the Army Benevolent Fund here today. I am a former—well, I have to keep checking myself. I am not a former Army officer; I am still an Army officer. I have just completed 38 years of regular service with the Army and I was reminded just last Friday that I have a reserve liability for the next few years, so I am still part of that organisation as well. I have been in this role with the Army Benevolent Fund since 1 November.

Mandy Harding: Good afternoon. My name is Mandy Harding, and I am head of commissioned grants at the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Charity.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Simon Harper. I am director of grants, services and programmes for the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund and have been since March 2023; I am effectively responsible for the charitable output of the benevolent fund. Prior to that, I served for 34 years in the Royal Air Force and for two years before that in the Royal Navy.

[Mr Francois]

Q Colonel Doherty, in fairness to you, we should put it on the record that, in the military, liability has a different meaning from the one that it has in general English language usage. Thank you for your service. The first issue is just a branding point. A while back the Army Benevolent Fund had a bit of a rebrand as the Soldiers’ Charity, I think. Where are you on that?

Col. Darren Doherty: We have rebranded now. The old terminology of ABF The Soldiers’ Charity was what we used for a number of years until last year. We have rebranded again, at a very low cost. It did not cost us very much. We did not go through any hugely expensive marketing routine to do it, but we are now the Army Benevolent Fund.

[Mr Francois]

Q You have gone back to the status quo ante.

Col. Darren Doherty: That is correct.

[Mr Francois]

Q You mentioned that you have 38 years of service, so you would be perfectly human to be thinking about pensions. There is very little reference to pensions in the Bill, but you could argue that if you are looking at issues of general service welfare, what happens to a service person’s pension is very important to them and their family. Do you think it a weakness in the Bill that it does not say much specifically about pensions? Would you like to see that specifically included?

Col. Darren Doherty: It is not an area of expertise for me. I think the provision of pensions and advice on pensions—this is from my personal experience of having just gone through it—is adequate, with the support of great institutions such as the Forces Pension Society as an additional advising actor. I am not sure that it is something that would require specifically laying out in the Bill. That is my own opinion.

[Mr Francois]

Q Thank you. I think we all know that the Forces Pension Society is the Office for Budget Responsibility, if you like, of all military pensions issues, but as it is not here this afternoon, so forgive the question to you.

Can we switch to the Royal Air Force, please? Air Commodore Harper, you are probably too young to remember, sir, but in the cold war there was what was called the tactical evaluation process, or TACEVAL. It was a bit like a military Ofsted, and a team could turn up at an airbase—for example, RAF Brüggen in West Germany—say that world war three had just broken out and basically put the station through its paces for several days, and they would get an Ofsted-like score at the end.

It is not quite as severe as that, but the Armed Forces Commissioner has an Ofsted-like capability under the Bill to turn up unannounced, certainly within the UK; it is more complicated if it is abroad. Do you think that that power will be valuable in holding people to account and concentrating minds, and how often do you think the commissioner should use it?

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I am old enough to recall TACEVAL, sir, and was part of that way back in the late 1980s.

[Mr Francois]

I was trying to be nice.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: You are very kind, but I remember it as Ofsted-like. When I was a commanding officer, I remember Ofsted visiting my unit, which was a training unit as well. I will phrase my answer in that respect. I found those inspections to the chain of command hugely beneficial on two grounds: they provided an independent view of the operational output of a given unit, and they allowed me to ensure, with confidence, that I had the appropriate processes and policies in place to deliver my output.

I have not been close to the Air Force in a regular sense for 18 months, but I guess the challenge would be how that is defined either in the Bill or in the roles and responsibilities of the commissioner—what output are you looking for from a particular unit, and what is it you are checking? The Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund will not have a particular view, but my personal view is that, if properly configured, it would be of value to commanding officers. I have no specific view on timescale, but once every 18 months would be the absolute maximum for me, based on my own personal experience in a training establishment.

[Mr Francois]

Q Some of your colleagues down the years have told me that knowing the TACEVAL team could turn up at almost any moment very much concentrated minds. It kept people sharp, is how one person put it to me. It is a slightly different situation here, but most people seem to think it is good to have those powers in the Bill.

We will move to the Royal Navy—apologies for leaving the senior service until last, Ms Harding. On the housing side, in my experience all three services tend to treat service housing slightly differently. From memory, quite a lot of service personnel live off base and tend to commute to their place of work. Quite a few of them actually buy a property rather than live in a quarter. Obviously, housing is one issue that the commissioner will look at. Are you happy that the powers in the Bill are sufficient for the commissioner to investigate that issue? I am thinking particularly about the ability to produce thematic reports, and housing is an obvious issue for an early report. Do you have a particular view on that?

Mandy Harding: From what I have read of the Bill, my understanding is that the Armed Forces Commissioner will have the power to investigate and look at issues that are arising. In our charity’s line of work, we come into contact with beneficiaries and we get reports in through the partners and organisations that we fund. In direct work with the people we have been supporting, particularly on neurodiversity and special educational needs and disabilities, housing does crop up.

That is the exciting part of having an Armed Forces Commissioner—somebody who can hear from different areas and connect the dots to realise what is happening in different places. There is an oversight role there. That is incredibly useful to us as grant funders. We do our grant funding based on need, so if need is identified, that is where we can bring that wraparound support to families.

[Mr Francois]

Q This is my last question. You mentioned SEND, which I think we have already agreed we might discuss on Thursday, because it is so important. Could you say a bit about the work that your charity has done on the SEND front?

Mandy Harding: We realise that a lot of our families have “plus, plus, plus” issues. We know that across the country there are issues with SEND. Getting assessments is very difficult and transferring across local authorities is particularly tricky. The issues were laid out quite well in the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker, which was commissioned in 2019. She laid out some recommendations, most of which—over 100—were accepted by the Government at the time. We have built on that report. We have continued to investigate need; we have gone out to beneficiaries to find out what is going on and what they need. That is the power of using commissioning principles in our grant-making, which is quite unique. We can then commission with the use of grants, having seen who the best provider is.

One of the big pieces of work we are doing is around neurodiversity. It is a big area of work, and I have already booked to speak to both my colleagues either side of me, because we would like to make this a tri-service piece of work going forward. I think that is what will be required to enable the changes that we can see might need to happen.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for your time this afternoon. All three of you will have seen much during your working lives and in the roles you have now, and had extensive conversations with service personnel. We are aware that there is an attrition rate from the service, low morale, dissatisfaction with the role and various issues to do with that. When we look at different surveys, key themes come out a number of times to do with accommodation, career prospects and family life.

The provision in clause 3 provides that service complaints can be made from people who are not necessarily service personnel, which is different from what happens with the ombudsman now. First, what are your thoughts on that? Secondly, one of the themes that has come through is the need for trust and transparency about the impact from anything that the new role does. How could that change enhance that?

Mandy Harding: I can take the first part of the question. I referred to the “Living in our Shoes” report by Professor Jan Walker. That report was very significant because it identified that when one person serves, the whole family serves. Having access for families is a welcome addition and my colleagues at the Naval Families Federation will be able to speak more effectively on that. It is not my area of expertise, because I am a grant maker, but I am sure that they would have more to say.

Air Commodore Simon Harper: I agree completely. We have a phrase in the Air Force: “Support the family”. You retain the service person by supporting the family. In respect to the question you ask, I would be supportive of the service family having that access. As a charity, it is important that we recognise the offer to the serving person. That offer is effectively a psychological contract that covers many different aspects, whether it be pay, pensions, housing, accommodation, food, or ability to get access to medical and dental care— and, indeed, the charities, too, play a role in that offer. It affects the serving families in different points at different times. It is very difficult to say there is a single issue or a few issues that are causing the level of dissatisfaction reported through the armed forces continuous attitude surveys and the like and through the families continuous attitude survey.

We are a families federation, and provide more detail on certain families. It is a multi-faceted issue, though, and difficult to pinpoint one particular place. It is important to understand that that offer is multifaceted and is a psychological contract at its very heart. It could take a number of things, which begin over time, to wear away the good will of that family, which then leads to dissatisfaction and, ultimately, people leaving the services.

Col. Darren Doherty: I do not think I can add much more to that, or comment on access to the service complaints system from beyond the serving person. I can speak about the wider family context and put it against what we provide.

As the Army Benevolent Fund, we provide a lifetime of support to serving and former soldiers and their immediate families, including the bereaved, when they are in need. That has built up since the Army Benevolent Fund was formed, 80 years ago. Even then, we understood the importance of the family unit and the importance of supporting the continuum of service, not just of the service person but of the whole family as they continue through the journey: joining, leaving and then serving, whether as a reservist, or a regular reservist, as in my case, and as a veteran, with the family that serves alongside them. That person, family or service person might be bereaved as well. It is about that total inclusivity.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Welcome: will each of you introduce yourself for the record?

Collette Musgrave: I am Collette Musgrave, the chief executive of the Army Families Federation.

Sarah Clewes: I am Sarah Clewes, the chief executive of the Naval Families Federation.

Maria Lyle: I am Maria Lyle, director of the RAF Families Federation.

[Mr Francois]

Q Having dealt with the three families’ federations when I was a Minister—admittedly, about a decade ago—I always found your input extremely valuable. I put that on the record this afternoon. I am sure that the Minister will echo my remarks.

You represent the families of service personnel and, as at the heart of the Bill are issues of general service welfare, may I give each of you an opportunity to raise your top two or three issues under that heading that you would like to see the commissioner produce early thematic reports on and to give us some idea why you picked those? This time, let us start with the senior service.

Sarah Clewes: “Welfare” is an interesting term. We are not in the welfare space. The Navy is looked after by the Royal Navy families and personnel service—they deal with welfare. However, under what “welfare” might mean to families, at the Naval Families Federation, our top two issues are housing and support to non-UK serving personnel and their families, with visa and immigration, the processes and the ongoing need for support from our qualified caseworkers.

Collette Musgrave: To be frank, I will be boring and raise the same two issues—but I will expand a little on “non-UK”. We have had multiple investigations and reports on the state of housing and accommodation—SLA and SFA—but there has been little investigation into the nature of the challenges that non-UK serving personnel, or family members who might be non-UK, also face in service family life.

[Mr Francois]

Q That is fair. The Defence Committee has done quite a bit on service accommodation down the years, but I cannot recall—having served on it for seven years or so—ever doing something specific on that. That is probably to the Committee’s discredit, but I cannot remember us doing a report directly on that.

Collette Musgrave: Non-UK serving personnel have been increasing year on year and form a much greater proportion of our armed forces than they once did.

[Mr Francois]

The Royal Air Force, what about you? It will be interesting to see whether we have a hat trick. Will you give us your top one or two?

Maria Lyle: You nearly have a hat trick. You say that we represent families, which we absolutely do. We represent serving personnel as well, which is why I will mention housing in terms of houses, but also single-living accommodation. We had 650 people who came to us this year on that issue, before we get going on housing itself.

My second one—we have a much smaller non-UK population in the RAF because we recruit differently—would be education and childcare. That is what people come to us about in its various forms and facets.

[Mr Francois]

Q Anecdotally, if colleagues will forgive me, I remember going to RAF Digby about a decade ago, where there were some very highly-qualified communications specialists, who do important work, living in what were virtually demountables, to use a colloquial term. These people are massively employable in industry and then we wonder why they leave, so I sympathise with your raising that issue. Again, this is a bit of a hot button of mine, but you also mentioned educational need. Does that include special educational needs, and if so, could you elaborate on that slightly?

Maria Lyle: It does. That is the very sharpest end of the wedge when it comes to challenges for military families. If they are moving, picking up that provision and replicating it in a new area is not always possible. I would say that they are the most vulnerable—the ones who have the biggest challenges to overcome in our systems.

[Mr Francois]

Q Perhaps I could take the liberty, Mr Efford, of asking the other two services whether they want to add anything on the SEN point. The Army tends to move around so much; I know that it is a particular issue when families move from garrison A to garrison B.

Collette Musgrave: I would merely echo Maria’s comments. It is very much at the sharp end of things in education provision for service children. SEN is a real concern for us, and significant numbers of people articulate to us that they are going to either leave or serve in separated service, because of the frustrations felt through many years of moving from location to location and having to start the SEN process over again. The transferability of many things that affect service personnel and their families, both for those inside the UK and those moving to and from the UK, is a real challenge and can often be the final tipping point for them making that decision to either leave or serve unaccompanied.

[Mr Francois]

Q I wrote a paper about retention, called “Stick or Twist?”, for a previous Prime Minister.

Collette Musgrave: Indeed you did.

[Mr Francois]

The pressure on family life, as we have already heard today, is the single biggest reason why people leave, but when we went round a number of military bases, we found it was often an amalgam of reasons. Sometimes there would be a pressure cooker effect over several years, and then one thing might become, in colloquial English, the straw that broke the camel’s back. Sometimes it is that cocktail that just becomes a bit too much. Is that a fair characterisation? [Interruption.] I can see some heads nodding, so that still holds good five years on. Thank you very much. You have been generous with your time, Mr Efford—thank you.

[Helen Maguire]

Q I will start from the left and go to the Army first. It is nice to meet you, Collette, and thank you for coming. I want to understand what challenges you see with families getting the support they need, and how you think the commissioner will help to address those challenges in their role.

Collette Musgrave: The challenges that we see with families getting the support they need can be articulated as both internal and external. Internal services and processes are the ones that Defence offers to families in order to maintain service family life, and then there are those provided by what one might characterise as external agencies—whether that is local authorities, the NHS, educational provision or whatever. The nature of the challenge can be different depending on with whom families are seeking to engage.

The challenges within the internal system can be largely about not being able to access the right information, not being given the right information when asking for it, consistency of the information and guidance that is given, and consistency of the provision. As we have spoken about, Army families in particular are very mobile, and what they are provided with in one location might be very different to what they are provided with in another, both in extent and quality of provision. We would really like to see the Armed Forces Commissioner do something on that in their role.

As the Army Families Federation, we absolutely welcome the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner with, as the Secretary of State said, a laser-like focus on the serving experience, which is often lost when talking about the armed forces community—those who are actually serving at the moment. We believe the Armed Forces Commissioner can play a key role in looking at the consistency of provision of both policy and processes within defence. Many of the concerns that come to us are a result of mixed information and mixed messages, and families not being able to access the provision that is there because they simply do not know how to access it or are being blocked in some way.

Externally, the issue is subtly different. There is not an unwillingness from the general UK population to support service personnel and their families. What there is sometimes is a lack of knowledge and understanding. In many of the large organisations that they are interfacing with, whether that is the NHS, a local authority or the Department for Work and Pensions, there is often a lack of understanding of the unique circumstances of service personnel and their families. It is difficult sometimes for those families in particular, who are to an extent slightly outside society—I am not articulating that well, because that is not what I want to say, particularly as a former service family and veteran myself. Often with housing, as well as sometimes healthcare and education—particularly if they are overseas or move back from overseas—their interfaces with external statutory authorities are not always straightforward and can vary hugely as they move around the country. Your experience in Scotland might be very different to your experience in England. Their ability to interface effectively with those services can sometimes be compromised.

Many of these organisations have signed up to the armed forces covenant. The people at the top are very happy to sign up to the armed forces covenant and say, “Yes, we made a great commitment.” The people on the frontline, who are actually dealing with our service personnel and their families, are often not so well-informed and do not necessarily fully understand some of the additional or different provision that has been made under the terms of the armed forces covenant. Those are the big handfuls, and to finally answer your question, those two key areas are where the Armed Forces Commissioner could help.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Minister, if you could give us your name, rank and serial number, we will get on.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard): Hello, my name is Luke Pollard. I am the Minister for the Armed Forces.

[Mr Francois]

Q Francois, Lieutenant 523962—very, very rusty number. Minister, we will get into all the debates on Thursday, but I give you fair notice that, after the testimony of a number of people today, including the last panel, we are probably going to try to provoke a debate on special needs education under clause 3, when we get to that—just to give you and your officials time to prepare.

I have a couple of other questions on the Bill. You said something on Second Reading that was not entirely clear—I do not mean that critically; it is just the way that it came out. Is the commissioner still going to take up individual cases that have exhausted the service complaints process, in the way that the Service Complaints Ombudsman currently does, or is the commissioner going to concentrate generally on more thematic issues? If it is the latter and not the former, that is a big change. Could you clarify that?

Luke Pollard: Yes, certainly. On the point about SEND, we have not specified an exhaustive list of precisely what the commissioner should be looking at because the independence of the commissioner allows them to choose which issues they want to address, based on the feedback that they are receiving from armed forces personnel and their families, or that they have identified on their visits. It is not an exhaustive list, and we are happy to look at particular circumstances—thank you for the notice.

When it comes to the role of the commissioner, we are effectively rolling the Service Complaints Ombudsman functions into the commissioner. The additional own initiative powers that will be added to this role, forming the commissioner’s office, will be for them to undertake thematic inquiries. Again, we have not overly specified the process that will happen when someone gets in touch with the commissioner, precisely because we want the commissioner to define what their processes should be and to have the independence to establish the processes, the structures and the ability to listen and feed into their thematic reports.

To the same extent, we have not specified how many thematic reports a commissioner should make. We are working on the assumption that, if they are looking at a range of issues, an annual report would contain a summary of their work throughout the year, as well as the usual annual reporting details about staff levels, volumes and other bits like that.

The Bill also includes the power for the commissioner to publish a separate report on a thematic issue if they choose to. It will be down to the commissioner to decide not only where that comes from, but where the issues are taken up. The commissioner has the ability to look at the service complaints system and the issues coming through that as one measure for deciding what thematic areas to investigate. It will be for the commissioner to decide what recommendations to make to Government via Parliament.

[Mr Francois]

Q To be really clear, is it both? If Corporal Atkins has exhausted the service complaints process but still feels deeply aggrieved and is convinced that it has not adequately dealt with his issue, he could still go to the commissioner, and the commissioner would have the discretion, just as the ombudsman always had, to take up Corporal Atkins’ complaint and look into it in more detail.

Luke Pollard: Exactly right—all the SCOAF functions move in their entirety. The only change we are making to the SCOAF functions is a very slight and minor one: at the moment, you need an officer to decide validity or eligibility, but that is being changed to an official. Apart from that, the entire SCOAF system is deliberately unchanged, because the place for any revisions to the functioning of the service complaints system would be the armed forces Bill, which will come in about two years’ time. The Bill gives the commissioner the ability to be informed by the service complaints system, as well as anything else they may receive, when deciding on thematic investigations or areas they want to look at.

[Mr Francois]

That is pretty clear, so thank you for clarifying. I will stop there because I know you have only limited time for your panel and others will want to ask questions.

[Michelle Scrogham]

Q It has all gone very quiet on the national veterans commissioner. All the devolved Governments have one; when will we get one here?

Luke Pollard: The Minister for Veterans and People has been looking at the system and will be taking steps to see what the most appropriate representation or system to put in place is. We inherited a system that has national veterans commissioners in some locations, but not all. Al Carns will look at that in due course.

We have deliberately not specified the interaction between any established commissioner for veterans or veterans group and the commissioner in the Bill, because we want the Armed Forces Commissioner to make an independent judgment. My expectation, however, is that there would be regular meetings between the commissioner and the variety of stakeholder groups that operate in the wider armed forces community, partly to check in on issues, but also, importantly, to check in on the progress of their recommendations and how they are being implemented.

A key part of this process is shining a spotlight on an issue, and in my mind it is not sufficient to say, “Here is an issue,” and just present it to Parliament. There needs to be an understanding of what happens next with it, and that is where that interaction would probably be most found.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner must—

(a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions;

(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of their responsibility.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out their functions.

The armed forces covenant is

“a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect in the communities, economy, and society they serve with their lives.”

I feel that it is important for the covenant to be incorporated into the Bill, and so far I do not see any reference to it. It is a binding commitment between the armed forces and the Government, and I would like to see it included in the Bill.

[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.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from –

(a) the Ministry of Defence;

(b) the armed forces; and

(c) any other government bodies

and shall be free from any influence or interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from any interference in the carrying out of their duties.

Amendment 8 has been tabled to facilitate a debate on how truly independent the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner will be from the Ministry of Defence. The Committee may recall that this topic cropped up a number of times during our public evidence sessions on Tuesday. A number of Committee members asked witnesses about the extent to which the new Armed Forces Commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, would be at arm’s length from the Department and therefore able to exercise truly independent judgment.

The two generals, as opposed to the three tenors—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; I had the privilege of serving with both at the Ministry of Defence—both commented on this point. General Gregory in particular stressed that whoever takes up the commissioner’s job would have to work hard to earn the trust of members of the wider armed forces community. He suggested that one good way of doing that would be to get out and about—make visits to garrisons, naval bases and air fields to meet service personnel and their families and to hear their concerns face to face. There is an old infantry saying: “Time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted.” This would perhaps be another good example of that principle in action.

One reason for the concern is that the Armed Forces Commissioner and their office, including their staff, will be funded by the Ministry of Defence rather than by Parliament. I am mindful of the old saying: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To draw an analogy, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who are elected by this House to hold the Department to account, are paid for by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on behalf of the taxpayer and not directly by the Government. I would also draw an analogy with what has happened to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.

Under the previous Government, the OVA was deliberately set up as an entity outside of the Ministry of Defence, having its home in the Cabinet Office and with a very proactive Minister in the Cabinet in Johnny Mercer. He was able to not only hold the Ministry of Defence to account in Government but liaise with other Government Departments that had an important influence on veterans’ affairs. As an example, the Department of Health and Social Care is obviously very important to veterans. Once they leave the armed forces they are no longer reliant on the Defence Medical Services for their medical needs, and they transition to the NHS. The decision by the incoming Government to take that office and roll it back into the Ministry of Defence has led to some criticism, including from the veterans community themselves. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Efford, I might return to that in more detail under new clause 2.

For now, I remind the Committee that on multiple occasions on Tuesday the word “trust” was used, both by witnesses and members of the Committee questioning them. I ask the Minister what he can do this morning to reassure the Committee that the Armed Forces Commissioner, who, we understand from Tuesday’s session, is not likely to be up and running until early 2026, is going to be able to win the trust of service personnel and their families. Will the commissioner truly be in a position to act independently on their behalf and in their best interests? I hope the Minister can understand the context in which these questions are being asked. I eagerly look forward to what he has to say.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make a couple of small points. I have worked with ombudsmen in the past; ultimately, as we heard in the evidence earlier this week, somebody has to pay for an ombudsman. Often that is funded in other ways. I have previously worked with the energy ombudsman, whose funding comes from the energy companies. It is important to put that on the record.

Furthermore, just because an amendment says that someone is independent, that does not make it so. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, building trust will be crucial for the person in this role. Later clauses make clear the independence the commissioner will have—whether that is their ability to enter premises without notice, should they see fit, or to consider a range of different requests. My feeling is that the intent of the amendment is already covered by the Bill. It is important that we make sure that the commissioner builds that trust, as was pointed out by several witnesses on Tuesday.

--- Later in debate ---

It is not necessary to include this additional provision in the Bill because it speaks to the entire spirit of the legislation before us today. Furthermore, the wording could introduce an element of subjectivity into the legislation, which would be difficult to measure. It is important that we always try to ensure our legislation is necessary, effective, accessible and certain. With that in mind, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Francois]

I welcome the Minister’s welcome for the amendment. I hope the Committee is doing the right thing here. We tabled it because the issue cropped up a lot in the public evidence session. By the way, I thought it was extremely useful to be able to have that. When I first came to the House, we did not have such sessions before our consideration of Bills. Perhaps this is teaching an old dog new tricks, but now, having seen that procedure in action, I can understand why it was introduced.

Trust and independence cropped up so often on Tuesday, so we thought it was important to table the amendment to get some of that on the record. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and for the spirit in which he has given them. I know that the hon. Member for Colchester is quite an expert in this subject, so I take the point about the drafting; however, it was a probing amendment from the outset and we thank the Minister for putting those assurances on the record. As he says, if ever the commissioner were challenged on the point of independence, he or she would be able to refer back to this debate in the Committee Hansard. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State will, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish an intended timeframe for—

(a) the appointment of the Commissioner;

(b) the abolishing of the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman;

(c) the commencement of operations of the office of the Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to state when they intend to appoint a Commissioner and get the office of the Commissioner operational.

We have tabled amendment 6 because currently no time frame is set out in the Bill. We believe it is important for a time frame to be set out and we feel that the Government should be held to account on that. Otherwise, the process could continue for several years. We feel it is important for both the armed forces and the MOD to know exactly when the Service Complaints Ombudsman will be abolished and the commissioner appointed, and when the powers of the commissioner will take effect. At least setting out a time frame would have some strength.

[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.

[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

[Helen Maguire]

I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 8, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—

“3  A relevant Parliamentary select committee will hold a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3A The select committee may hold a confirmatory vote on the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner.

3B Where a select committee has expressed a negative opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate without appearing before the select committee to address the concerns raised by the committee.

3C If the select committee maintains its negative opinion following the further appearance of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may not proceed with the appointment of that candidate.

3D Where a select committee has expressed a positive opinion on the appointment of the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for Commissioner, including after a further appearance before the committee of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State may recommend the appointment of the candidate to His Majesty.

3E The Commissioner is to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would mean that the Commissioner can only be appointed after appearing before a relevant select committee and obtaining its approval.

As numerous hon. Members have outlined, it is incredibly important that the role of the commissioner be completely independent and be scrutinised across the parties. We feel it is important for a parliamentary Select Committee to play a role in the commissioning process. It would allow cross-party consensus and would ensure that the commissioner, whoever they may be, is truly independent and can make the right decisions and examinations as appropriate.

[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 ---

[Mr Francois]

The Minister mentions Ajax. I did not, but as he did, we will read that into the record.

There were times when the Defence Committee would have dearly loved that power. Had we had it, certain programmes might have suffered a different fate. In parallel, there is another important difference between the American Committee system and ours.

[Pam Cox]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

If it is about Ajax, gladly.

[Pam Cox]

The Committees are not comparable, are they? The American system of Select Committees is so different from ours that we are talking about apples and pears.

[Mr Francois]

They are not directly comparable, but as I was coming on to say, the American Committees have a much stronger power over appointments. To illustrate my point, some debates in the American media are about whether the new Defence pick that Donald Trump is advocating may or may not come under some challenge during congressional appointment hearings. That issue only arises because the Committee has a stronger power. Here, there is an increasing trend that a Committee is allowed to interview people and express an opinion, but ultimately it cannot say no.

We all agree that the commissioner will be a very important appointment, for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined. Getting it right is really quite important. In extremis, if the Select Committee were to decide, for some good reason, that a particular candidate were not suitable for the role, would the Minister support the idea of its being allowed to veto the appointment? If not, how does the Minister envisage the Defence Committee playing a part in the appointment of this very important person?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel, with responsibility for providing the Commissioner with advice on legal issues arising in the course of the Commissioner’s work of promoting and investigating general service welfare.”

This amendment would require the Commissioner’s staff to include a KC to provide legal advice to the Commissioner on legal issues arising in the course of their work.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 10, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) Financial assistance provided to the Commissioner by the Secretary of State must increase annually by a measure determined by the increase in the Consumer Prices Index 12-month rate published by the Office for National Statistics.”

This amendment would require the financial assistance provided to the Commissioner to increase with inflation.

Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the financial and practical assistance provided to the Commissioner is appropriate and sufficient to allow the Commissioner to carry out their functions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide adequate financial and practical assistance to the Commissioner to enable it to carry out their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I will come to it afterwards.

[Mr Francois]

Okay, thank you.

We live in an increasingly litigious world, including the wider prevalence of so-called lawfare issues on the modern battlefield. Therefore it seems important to us that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice in carrying out their duties. We believe that could best be provided by a qualified King’s counsel, perhaps specialising in areas of employment law and other matters that would relate to the welfare of armed service personnel and their families.

There is a live issue in the armed forces community: if they take life, which sometimes they are required to do in the service of the country, what are the legal implications for them, maybe even decades later? The issue is generally referred to as lawfare. Let me give a specific example of why this matters, Mr Efford. I am going to refer to a case that has concluded; I reassure you and your Clerk that the sub judice rule does not apply, I believe, because the case is over.

On 10 December, the BBC reported, under the heading “Ex-lawyer spared jail over false Iraq War claims”, that

“Phil Shiner was given a two-year suspended sentence at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud relating to legal aid claims made in 2007.”

For background,

“The former boss of Public Interest Lawyers was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2017 for pursuing false torture and murder allegations against British troops.”

The article continues:

“A lengthy inquiry into wider allegations of abuse at the hands of British soldiers established ‘beyond doubt’ that all the most serious allegations had been found to be ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies’.”

According to the National Crime Agency, Mr Shiner received around £3 million towards the cost of legal aid for the cases in which he was involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

At this point, I give way—hopefully it will save the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar the trouble of tabling multiple parliamentary questions.

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to schedule 1 on page 10 of the Bill. It specifically says:

“The Secretary of State may…provide staff in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State by the Commissioner”.

My reading of that is that the commissioner, should they wish to, would be able to hire a King’s counsel for specific issues. At the same time, it would preserve the independence of the commissioner: we would not be putting anything into the Bill to make Parliament direct them, and we could make sure that independence was maintained.

[Mr Francois]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his accurate reading of the legislation. On Second Reading, the Minister made the point that the legislation is drafted to be facilitative. For instance—we will come to this later—it does not necessarily define exactly what are and are not “general service welfare matters”. It provides a broad remit. But for the reasons that I hope I have been able to articulate, we believe that although the schedule that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would facilitate the Armed Forces Commissioner in seeking to appoint a legal adviser, that would have a spending implication. It could be—it is not inconceivable—that some in the Ministry of Defence would baulk at that. The intention of putting the provision into the Bill is to include beyond peradventure the right of the commissioner to seek to appoint a senior legal adviser. In a sense, it does not compel the commissioner to do that, but it gives them that power very clearly.

[Amanda Martin]

You say that your amendment does not tell the commissioner that they should make the appointment, but it states:

“The Commissioner’s staff must include a King’s Counsel”.

Since there is a “must”, what you just said is not correct. If we agree to this amendment, we are saying that the commissioner, who we want to be independent, will not have the choice of who they include in their staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned. Your amendment says “must include”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

“You” refers to me in the Chair, not to the person opposite. Just a gentle reminder about that.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Lady is right. The amendment says that the commissioner should make the appointment; I hope we have given the rationale for why we believe that is important. What sort of KC the commissioner employed, and how often they used them, would be a matter for the commissioner: they would still have some discretion and, as has been intimated, there are KCs and KCs.

But the principle of the amendment is that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice because lawfare is becoming more and more of an issue for armed forces personnel. For the sake of brevity, I will not read into the record a very good article that appeared in The Spectator about why people are leaving the Special Air Service because of the issue. It is a problem for retention in the armed forces, particularly in certain units, and this is an attempt to acknowledge that.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

To refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said, the amendment does say that the commissioner’s staff “must” include a King’s counsel. That would effectively tie the hands of the commissioner, firmly setting that budget. I would much rather that they had flexibility, so that they could choose who they wanted to serve within their staff; should they need a KC, they would be very welcome to get one. Including that they “must” would eat that budget, which could be used elsewhere if needed.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the hon. Lady’s question, and I do not want to get into an “angels on a pinhead” argument, but that member of staff could be part-time. It could be that on the staff of the commissioner is a qualified KC, but only brought into action when there is a specific legal aspect to be examined—they would not necessarily have to sit in their office five days a week waiting for a case to come in. If there was no work, then they would not necessarily be employed.

I accept that perhaps we should have put the words “part or full-time” into the amendment, but the key thing is that the commissioner would have access to a King’s counsel, even on a part-time basis, to deal with complaints that have a specific legal aspect, including aspects of lawfare. We did not mandate in the amendment that it had to be a full-time role.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making about whether the role would be full-time, part-time or maybe just a few hours a week. But the fundamental issue for me is that the more restrictions or stipulations we mandate, the more we fundamentally influence the independence of the role, which was part of our open discussion on Tuesday. The more amendments, rules and procedures that we dictate, the more we weaken independence. Does he recognise that concern?

[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.

[The Chair]

Order. May I just say that interventions should be short?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Amanda Martin]

My understanding is that the last time that the defence budget was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government, and that in the 14 years under the Conservatives there was not a 2.5% budget.

[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 ---

[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.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[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 (Fourth sitting)

Mark Francois Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th December 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome Committee members to this afternoon’s sitting. I will not tell you at the beginning what train I am hoping to catch.

Clause 4

Commissioner’s functions in relation to general service welfare

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

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(2A) A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions and other related benefits to serving and former members of the armed forces.”

This amendment would enable the Commissioner to include matters relating to pensions and other such benefits in their investigations of general service welfare matters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I hope we shall not inconvenience you too much with regard to your journey back.

The purpose of amendment 12 is to confirm in the Bill that pensions would be among the topics that the commissioner can investigate under the heading of “general service welfare matters”. This is obviously a matter of keen interest to service personnel and their families, and having good pension provision for serving in the armed forces has always been an aid to both recruitment and particularly retention, especially for non-commissioned officers and officers as they progress in their careers.

I have often felt—and I include the time when I served as a Minister in the Ministry of Defence—that we have not really done enough to successfully market the value of military pensions as part of the wider service offer in order to convince people to join and then remain in the armed forces. In my experience, even many armed forces personnel did not appreciate that they had one of the few pension schemes across the entire public sector that was effectively non-contributory. In other words, their employer paid a contribution into their pensions, but they did not. In comparison, the last time I checked, most serving police officers pay something like 14% of their salary into their pension, whereas serving personnel still do not have to pay anything. Historically, the pension has always been—certainly as people become more experienced, get older and think more about their pension provision, much like the rest of the population—a vital tool in keeping people in.

I would like to raise with the Minister one particularly pressing pensions matter, which provides a classic example of the sort of issue that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be empowered to investigate. In essence, it relates to the potential liability for inheritance tax, relating to death in service lump sum payments. This follows on, unfortunately, from the IHT changes announced in the Budget.

I will refer to a briefing that was recently provided to me by Major General Neil Marshall OBE, the chief executive of the Forces Pension Society, which, I hope the Minister and Committee will accept, is the absolute gold standard expert on any matter relating to forces pensions—the sort of Office for Budget Responsibility of armed forces pensions. The AFP note summarises the issue as follows:

“Death in service benefits affect those who die prematurely. While benefits pay to spouses or civil partners will be unaffected by IHT, we understand that under the Government’s proposals, death in service lump sum payments for service personnel who die in the service and are not married or in a civil partnership would be liable to IHT. This would lead to military personnel being disadvantaged compared with their civilian counterparts”,

not least because their civilian counterparts would be

“able to place such benefits in trust and therefore outside of the deceased’s estate.”

The note continues to say that the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2005 and subsequently the armed forces pension scheme 2015—AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, as they are colloquially known—

“saw eligible partners recognised as dependents and therefore eligible for benefits.”

Under AFPS 05 and AFPS 15, personnel do not need to be married; they need to have an established partner. The note continues:

“This was in addition to married couples and those in civil partnerships. This was a welcome reflection of societal changes over the past 30 years or so; introducing a potential inheritance tax charge on death in service benefits for those military people who are not married or in a civil partnership is at odds with the extant policy.”

To put in this in layman’s English, because in my experience anything to do with pensions does tend to be quite complicated: if Corporal Thomas Atkins of the 1st Battalion the Lone Shire Regiment were walking down his high street tomorrow—not on active service—and unfortunately dropped dead of a heart attack, even if he had a long-term partner and perhaps three children but was not married or in a civil partnership with that partner, then his family would be liable for a potential inheritance tax charge on his death in service benefit. Not only is there the risk of the financial penalty—I will come on to a case study in a moment to illustrate the dilemma—but the bureaucracy could result in payouts from the estate being delayed while the liability for IHT is being calculated. The Forces Pension Society summarise the issue in its very good briefing note as follows:

“At a time of extreme vulnerability, these lump sums need to be paid promptly, as they currently are. If death in service benefits become subject to IHT there will be a delay to the benefit being paid both while the estate is assessed for IHT and while the amount of IHT attributable to the DIS [death in service] benefit is assessed and the scheme administrator (Veterans UK) pays the tax charge.”

As the briefing note then goes on to explain:

“Many who would not previously have been caught with an IHT liability will find themselves in a very bureaucratic process that will slow down the already lengthy process of sorting out the financial affairs of an individual at what is a very difficult time.”

The Forces Pension Society gave several examples of how this could affect personnel in practice. For the sake of brevity, I will just give one, which I hope is sufficient to illustrate the point. Take the case of an OR-9 equivalent—a senior warrant officer at the top of the non-commissioned rank structure. This individual has a partner to whom they are unmarried, and on death leaves an estate worth £400,000 and death in service benefits of £248,292—four times their salary of £62,000. They would pay 40% inheritance tax on the non-pension assets, resulting in an IHT liability of £30,000, but after April 2027, if the DIS benefits were included in the estate, that would increase the estate’s value to £648,292. The IHT liability will therefore increase accordingly to £129,316. That represents an increase of around 330%.

In fairness, we on the Conservative Benches suspect that this is an example of the law of unintended consequences in action. We do not believe that the Government deliberately brought in these changes with the specific intention of targeting armed forces personnel. There is a debate about farmers and other groups in society, but I am focusing today on armed forces personnel and their families. To be clear, we are not saying that the Government did this deliberately in order to damage those people’s interests. Nevertheless, the default position is that they would suffer in the ways I have just outlined, unless something is done. Indeed, the Forces Pension Society summed up the problem as follows:

“We believe the Government has made an error and would not knowingly implement a policy that runs counter to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. The situation is recoverable should they act now.”

We on the Conservative Benches support that plea.

I hope that when the Minister replies, he will assure us that, following the consultation on these proposals—which will be overseen by His Majesty’s Treasury, not by the MOD, because it is a consultation on the IHT changes in general—he is confident that armed forces personnel and their families will be exempted from any potential inheritance tax liabilities on death in service payments, whether or not those armed forces personnel die in active service. I hope that I have managed to explain that in terms that the Committee can follow.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will in a moment.

I hope that, as an act of good will, the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment to remove any doubt about the ability of the Armed Forces Commissioner—who, as we heard this morning, will end up being appointed in early 2026, a year before these proposed changes are due to come into effect—to look in detail at this issue. Given the rightful concerns of the Forces Pension Society, I must tell the Minister that I am minded to press the amendment to a Division if he does not do the right thing.

Having hopefully explained what is admittedly a slightly complex issue, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response, but before I sit down, I will gladly take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

[Juliet Campbell]

In addressing welfare and support for families, the shadow Minister has focused on pensions, but what are his thoughts on wider issues such as childcare and education, which we should also be thinking about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

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

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment. Having raised this issue with the Minister, who has a look on his face that says, “This wasn’t in my folder,” I very much hope that he will, being an artful chap, seek some inspiration and extemporise by saying something encouraging so that we do not feel it necessary to press the amendment. I was going to conclude my remarks there, but I do not want to be accused of curtailing the debate, so I will give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Amanda Martin]

Although we—and, I think, service personnel—recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about pensions in relation to those specific incidents, I will make three points if I may. First, the amendment states that

“A ‘general service welfare matter’ may include issues relating to the provision of pensions”.

That would give a rather larger weighting to the direction of the commissioner, potentially over the direction of service personnel and their families. I talk to service personnel in my city of Portsmouth, which is the home of the Royal Navy, and they might prefer for it to state that a general service welfare matter may include issues relating to housing, postings, their professional careers, their rules of engagement and access to local services.

Including that single provision would direct the commissioner and would not allow for issues to come up from personnel and the grassroots—from our people on the ground. Should a matter come forward as an issue they want to raise, obviously it is in the gift of the commissioner to do so, but actually the amendment would limit things. From the conversations I have had with personnel in my area, this is not at the top of their list. They would not like to be directed on what they can bring forward to the commissioner.

[Mr Francois]

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument, but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

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

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

[Luke Akehurst]

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

[Mr Francois]

Is this another brief intervention?

[Luke Akehurst]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I do not think it is, actually. This is important, because as written—without the amendment—the provision refers to a matter that

“arises in connection with ongoing service of persons subject to service law”.

As soon as someone is killed, therefore, they are not within the purview of the Armed Forces Commissioner and nor are their families, because there is no more ongoing service. Is that not the point?

[Mr Francois]

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

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

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

[Luke Akehurst]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

[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.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend and I are grateful for that clarification. None the less, we need to put down a marker. We need to make very plain to the Government—not just the MOD, but the Treasury, because it will be a Treasury consultation and it is a Treasury tax—that we regard this point as very important and that we hope and believe that the Government should reverse this measure.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No. On that basis, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 1

Ayes: 4

---

Conservative: 4

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 11

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Mr Betts. If I could record for posterity that neither of the two Liberal Democrats assigned to the Committee are here at the moment. In fairness, one has a conflicting obligation in the Chamber; the other has a reason we do not know—it could be a family reason. For the record, the Liberal Democrats were not here to vote on this.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

During the public evidence session, several of our witnesses—including those from the three service families federations—raised the question of special educational needs provision for the children of armed forces personnel. That provoked a number of questions to witnesses from members of the Committee, including some from me. I gave the Minister and the then Chair notice that I would seek to provoke at least a brief debate on education, and on special educational needs in particular. Having taken advice, I seek to do so under clause 4 stand part.

I will try to summarise the issue succinctly. Because of the nature of service life, service families often have to move locations, for example from one Army garrison to another or from one RAF airbase to a different one. Not only are their partners encouraged to “follow the flag”, as the old saying has it, but their children are expected to do so as well. As the witnesses highlighted, including the two generals, as I like to call them—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory—that often presents a number of challenges, not least for spousal employment. Partners of armed forces personnel sometimes find it challenging to pursue careers of their own if they are asked to move frequently. It can present other issues as well, such as access to medical and dental services, with people having to register and re-register as they move from one military patch to another. Here I hope I am keeping my word to the hon. Member for Broxtowe and raising a number of issues aside from pensions. [Interruption.] She smiles benevolently at me in return, and I thank her.

However, there is a particular issue regarding children’s education. It is not my purpose this afternoon to provoke a major debate on VAT on school fees and the continuity of education allowance, although I note in passing that some witnesses raised that on Tuesday. Having seen the uplift in CEA rates, which I think was published on Tuesday, I fear that it will not be enough to compensate for the 20% increase in school fees. That may have a detrimental effect on armed forces retention, not just for officers but for senior NCOs in particular. I cite one brief example. When I was doing the “Stick or Twist?” study about five years ago, I spoke to one RAF senior warrant officer who said to me: “If you screw around with CEA, Sir, I am off, and so is my husband, who is in the service too. It is really the one thing that keeps us both in—we are doing it for the education of our children.” I wanted to highlight to the Minister and the Committee the potential effect on retention of not fully compensating armed forces personnel for the increase.

Having done that, I move on to SEN. As many Committee members know from their constituency casework, in the civilian world, if a child is diagnosed with special educational needs, it can take up to two years to achieve an education, health and care plan—what was in old money a statement of special educational needs—from the relevant local education authority. For the avoidance of doubt, that can be the case under Conservative, Labour and other administrations. The issue is not particularly confined to local councils of one party colour or another; the process is just very complex and time-consuming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

As a teacher who worked in Portsmouth North, where we have a large number of naval families, I absolutely agree with you that SEND is in crisis. For families who need to move, the concerns are amplified. I sit on the Education Committee, and SEND is one of the top priorities that we are looking at with this Government.

[Mr Francois]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She will know, not least from her service on that important Committee, of what is called the statutory override. In a nutshell, local authorities must produce a balanced budget each year, but, because of the very great pressure on local authorities that are also LEAs, they have been allowed to overspend on SEN for several years because it is such a big pressure. Bluntly, it would have bankrupted some of them otherwise. She may be able to update us, but I understand that the default position is that the statutory override is due to expire in March 2026. In other words, when local authorities are planning their new budgets for the ’26-’27 financial year, those budgets will have to balance.

I served on the Public Accounts Committee for a couple of years in the previous Parliament. About a month ago, the National Audit Office produced a report, which I am sure the Education Committee will look at, basically saying that the current system is unsustainable. This will be a challenge for the new Government. I am not trying to make a partisan point here, but it was a challenge for the previous Government and it will be a challenge for the new Labour Government, too. I mention that just to drive home the scale of the SEN challenge. There is no evidence that armed forces personnel are proportionately more or less likely to have a special needs child than members of civilian communities, so statistically it is a big problem for them, too.

[Terry Jermy]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mr Francois]

I am trying to wind up, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a point. This is an important topic.

[Terry Jermy]

In a surgery just two weeks ago, I had a serving member of the armed forces who is no longer deployable because he has to homeschool his child as a result of failure in relation to SEND. Does the shadow Minister agree that one of the big challenges is that this is widespread across the whole country? It is not just a problem for us in Norfolk. If my constituent were to be deployed elsewhere, there would be exactly the same challenges, because the issue is widespread across the whole country.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not have the NAO report in front of me, and that is my fault—forgive me—but from memory, it made the point that this was a nationwide problem. The scale of the problem was such that it did not just affect region or another; it touched pretty much everywhere. I think the NAO focused mainly on England and Wales, but certainly in those two nations this was a big problem, and I have nothing to lead me to believe that it is not a problem in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

On childcare, I should add that one result of “Stick or Twist?” was that the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, managed to use the report as ammunition to persuade the Treasury to invest quite a lot of money in childcare facilities for armed forces personnel. The Minister will know how difficult that can be. It included improving childcare facilities at a number of military installations around the country and, in some cases, extending the hours to something more akin to wraparound childcare. For the record, if only for that, the report was worth writing.

I think we have given this issue a good go, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to raise another, so I will leave it there. I am sure the Minister understands the spirit of this clause stand part debate, and I very much hope that he can give us some good news in this area. I am sure that the whole Committee, as well as the armed forces and their families, would welcome that.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I only have two points to make. First, if it reassures the hon. Lady, I did read into the record that she had a conflicting appointment downstairs in the main Chamber and that that was why she was not here. I am not so sure about her colleague, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), but I did place it on the record that she had to be downstairs.

As I understand it, recruits would be subject to service law once they have taken the oath and joined the armed forces. If one takes that as one’s handrail, they should already be covered by the Bill. None the less, I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, so perhaps the Minister could kindly clarify whether my understanding is correct.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Francois]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As we come round the final bend, hopefully the Committee will recall something that cropped up quite a lot in Tuesday’s public evidence session. A number of witnesses mentioned veterans, and there were quite a few questions, so we thought it appropriate to table a new clause to facilitate a debate on this subject, and specifically on how the Armed Forces Commissioner might, if at all, be able to engage on issues of veterans’ welfare, including with the existing veterans commissioners.

There is concern within the veterans’ community about the incoming Government’s decision, first, to remove the Veterans Minister from Cabinet and, secondly, to roll the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD, whereas previously it was at least independent from that Department, if not wholly independent from the Government, when the OVA lived in the Cabinet Office.

I am not imagining that this is a matter of concern. I have a letter here that was written to the Minister for Veterans and People, dated 30 July 2024, co-signed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the then Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. The letter highlights very well the issue of genuine independence from the MOD. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter’s tone is in no way personally critical of the Veterans Minister, whose military service we fully acknowledge and salute this afternoon; the nub of the issue is the fact that the OVA has been moved. The letter says:

“Firstly, as a junior minister you have no seat in Cabinet. We understand that SofS will represent veterans at this level but his responsibilities are broad and he is not focusing daily on veterans’ affairs; nor will you, with your entire MoD people portfolio… Secondly, the subordination of the OVA under your control”—

that is, the MOD’s control—

“whilst tidying-up the government wiring diagram, also concerns us. The major factors that impact on veterans, such as health, housing, employment, education and social care are not MoD controlled. As such, locating the OVA in the Cabinet Office made sense, to best coordinate and cajole other departments into taking veterans’ needs into account.”

I have now kept my word to the hon. Member for North Durham, who challenged me to talk about this—I have done my best.

The letter from the three veterans commissioners goes on to say:

“Veterans have little faith in the MoD leading on veteran policy and delivery. This attitude has been entrenched through the perception of adversity and neglect that many veterans have experienced in their dealings with the MoD. It is a tough message, but one that we are duty bound to deliver.”

The previous Government cannot be blamed for this one, because we created the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and deliberately gave birth to it, as it were, in the Cabinet Office and not the MOD. Much of today’s debate has been about the independence, or otherwise, of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Well, here are three veterans commissioners collectively expressing their “concern” about the Government’s decision to take the OVA and roll it back into the MOD, where the risk is that the Department will end up marking its own homework. Veterans clearly preferred it when the OVA was at least semi-independent under the Cabinet Office, and when Johnny Mercer was an extremely proactive member of the Cabinet pushing very hard on a range of these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

As an MP who represents a constituency with an active barracks and many veterans, I totally agree that this is a serious matter, but what does it have to do with the Bill, and is the wording of the new clause not in danger of affecting the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, and their right to set how they work independently, by putting what may be artificial timescales on decisions?

[Mr Francois]

I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What it has to do with the Bill is that this issue cropped up quite a lot in the public evidence session. I respectfully refer him to the Hansard report of Tuesday’s proceedings. A number of witnesses raised the veterans issue, and I believe a number of members of the Committee followed up with questions. We had tabled the new clause by Monday night because we knew that there was concern within the veterans’ community about the independence of the OVA and therefore the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which to be fair is a theme that we have discussed repeatedly today. That is the context in which the new clause was tabled on Monday evening, but it is worrying that one of the three veterans commissioners apparently felt compelled to resign because some in Government were seeking to crimp what they were trying to do on behalf of the veterans they were appointed to serve.

Now that the OVA is back within the MOD, and given that the decision was taken on the Government’s watch, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—we have a MOD Minister here, not a Cabinet Office Minister—that there will be no further attempts to impinge on the independence of any veterans commissioner by anyone in Government, any more than we would want them to impinge on the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner. I have three very specific questions to that effect; then I will allow the Minister to reply.

First, where is the veterans commissioner for England? We were told, when I raised this issue on Second Reading, that the Department was working on it. At one point, there was going to be a UK-wide veterans commissioner, which then seemingly morphed into a veterans commissioner for England. We have one for Scotland and one for Wales—we had one for Northern Ireland too, but he resigned—so where are we on the veterans commissioner for England? Why should English veterans be at any disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the other three nations of the awesome foursome? Those English veterans served the Crown too. Where is their commissioner?

Secondly, what is the timetable for replacing the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner? Presumably the Government do not want that post to remain vacant for long, particularly with all the utter chaos over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Thirdly, what formal assurances can the Minister give on the record that this will not happen again? Those are my three questions.

[Amanda Martin]

You state—

[Mr Francois]

“He”!

[Amanda Martin]

Sorry. The right hon. Gentleman states that the Veterans Minister is vital and the fact that they do not sit in Cabinet now is a concern. Can he tell me which Tory MP sits in the shadow Cabinet to represent veterans?

[Mr Francois]

The clue is in the name: the shadow Cabinet is there to shadow the actual Cabinet. If there is not a Veterans Minister in the actual Cabinet, it is not necessarily axiomatic that there would be one in the shadow Cabinet.

To be clear, the decision to take the Veterans Minister out of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and roll them in under the Ministry of Defence as—no disrespect—a junior Minister, was a decision taken by the Labour Government—[Interruption.] Excuse me—one at a time! I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley to my left—dare I put it that way—saying that the Prime Minister promised he would not do that. It was a decision taken by the Labour Government. I have read out the comments from the commissioners, who are there to represent the interests of the veterans’ community; I am not imagining it. The community are clearly very concerned, so perhaps we could hear the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[The Chair]

I notice that the right hon. Member did not specify which January.

[Mr Francois]

If I may, Mr Betts, that was clearly the voice of experience.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.