Ukraine

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%—

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

When?

[Maria Eagle]

In the spring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Forces Pension Society has already stated that levying inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits would be wholly counter to the armed forces covenant, and we Conservatives wholly agree. The consultation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on that proposal closed on 22 January. On what day did the MOD submit its response to that key consultation—presumably in defence of service families’ interests—and will the Minister place a copy of that response in the Library?

[Al Carns]

May I remind the right hon. Member of my service, and of the fact that I will in no way, shape or form take this for granted? I am putting all my effort into those discussions at the moment. My officials have discussed that with the Treasury, I have discussed it with the Treasury, and we will continue to discuss such issues with the Treasury to ensure that our armed forces personnel get the deal that they deserve.

[Mr Francois]

I commend the Minister on his Distinguished Service Order—we all do—but in answer to a parliamentary question, we were told:

“The Ministry of Defence has not made a formal response to HM Revenue and Customs’ technical consultation.”

It really should have done. Who in their right mind would soldier for a Government who do not have their back, whether on school fees, lawfare or inheritance tax, or worse, do not have the back of their family if they die unmarried and in service?

Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 General Committees

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

Good morning, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate the court martial rules 2024. Incidentally, when I served as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about a decade or so ago, I attended part of a court martial during a ministerial visit to 16 Air Assault Brigade at Merville barracks in Colchester. There is a court martial centre there, and I witnessed part of a case and had the opportunity to observe the system in action at first hand.

This SI seems to be relatively straightforward, but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, I note that in the accompanying explanatory notes at point 2.1, it says that “Dr Andrew Murrison, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence People, and Service Families…confirms that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.” I raise that point because it suggests that the SI was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), when he served as a Minister in that capacity under the previous Government. If that is correct, perhaps this Minister can explain to the Committee how long the SI has been in gestation, as the implications are that it appears to date back quite some time.

Secondly, if I read the SI correctly, it seems to relate partly to sentencing provisions as well as the conduct of court martials. The Minister did not really say much about that in his remarks, so I wonder whether he could confirm that my understanding of that is correct.

Thirdly, if this SI is passed this morning—I rather suspect it will be—as we are debating the 2024 court martial rules, and unless I am mistaken, it is now 2025, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the rules will actually come into practical effect.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

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

The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House!

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

[Jim Allister]

I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

[Graeme Downie]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says:

“The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.”

[Graeme Downie]

I am very much enjoying the right hon. Member’s remarks from the Dispatch Box, as I always do, but he is discussing an issue that is definitely not within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it would be better to move on to the areas where—hopefully—we have cross-party consensus.

[Mr Francois]

First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected.

This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

When I have finished this point, yes.

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

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

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

[Luke Akehurst]

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

[Mr Francois]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, please do not read out all the quotes, but come to your conclusion.

[Mr Francois]

I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has possibly more veterans per head of population than any other constituent part of the United Kingdom. Thousands served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment alongside the British Army regiments during their tours in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the new veterans commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, who has also served with distinction, and does he agree with the call of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) today that this should be a fully funded and full-time post in Northern Ireland, given the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Francois]

I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow.

In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division.

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

I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and all who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is a landmark step towards fulfilling this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve by strengthening support for our armed forces, and their families, who stand behind them. Our forces face a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale that this Government inherited after 14 years of a Conservative Government; only four in 10 of our service personnel report being satisfied with service life. We need this Bill to establish a champion who can shine a light on the general service welfare matters most affecting our people, so that we in this House can understand those issues and hold this Government and future Governments to account.

I will turn to each of the amendments proposed. New clause 1 in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to bring those going through the recruitment process into the commissioner’s remit. We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis. That is why the Secretary of State laid out a number of policies to improve our recruitment policy early doors. One of them is the 10-30 policy, so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey): the policy that a provisional offer will be made within 10 days of an application to the armed forces, and a provisional start date will be given within 30 days. That is a substantial step forward for those joining our armed forces. Some 84% of those who seek to join the armed forces drop out of the process because it takes too long. That is an utter scandal that this Government are determined to address. That is why the 10-30 policy was put in place, and why the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People and I have focused on improving our retention and recruitment policies. It is also why I have to resist the hon. Lady’s amendments—because the focus of this Bill is on those who serve and their families. They have been neglected for far too long. That is why this Bill is relentlessly and unapologetically focused on providing an independent champion for them.

I understand why the hon. Lady seeks to include recruits in the scope of the Bill. That would mean 150,000 candidates every single year being added to the workforce on which the commissioner is focused. Our job as a Government is to make it easier to convert more of those applicants into military personnel, and the new lateral entry into cyber work announced by the Defence Secretary is a good example of that, but the commissioner’s focus should remain on those who serve and their families.

New clause 2, on veterans, tabled by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is about ensuring decent engagement with veterans commissioners across the country, and with the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The manifesto commitment on which the Bill delivers is clear: it is a commitment to addressing the gap in support for military personnel. The commissioner is to highlight the issues affecting personnel today, not matters from the past.

I understand why the hon. Member tabled the new clause, and with the Government’s new role of Minister for Veterans and People, we have made clear our intention of improving the support that we offer veterans, but the commissioner’s role is to support service personnel and their families. It is also the role of the commissioner to decide independently which general service welfare matters they should investigate. That freedom and independence are vital to the role, so it is important to keep the commissioner’s freedom to decide whom to engage with. However, I reassure the hon. Member that I would expect that once the commissioner was established, their terms of reference would be established for engagement with a variety of organisations from the charitable and military charity sectors, including bodies that represent veterans, and veterans commissioners across the UK. I therefore think that the effect of what he seeks will be provided in our implementation of the Bill, so the new clause is unnecessary.

Amendment 7, on the covenant, is also well intentioned. It is important to realise that this is not a stand-alone Bill; it amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, part 16A of which deals with the covenant. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has sought to make the covenant apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but I reassure her that as this Bill will insert provisions relating to the Armed Forces Commissioner into the Armed Forces Act, they will already grip in that way. I further reassure her that later this Parliament, the Government will bring forward proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on our manifesto commitment of putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. I therefore feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but I understand and entirely appreciate why she wanted to bring it forward. I hope that all of us can lend our support to the further implementation of the armed forces covenant, so that it grips not just local but central Government.

On amendment 8, which is on independence, I hope that there is no doubt that the intention that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for our armed forces and hold this and future Governments to account is clear in the legislation, and from commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have made at the Dispatch Box. I therefore generally welcome the principle of the amendment, which we discussed in detail in Committee. The Bill already has a number of provisions to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct their inquiries separately from Government. Those provisions include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate, their reporting powers, their power of entry to defence sites to carry out their functions—without notice, in some circumstances—and an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner. Many of those functions will be transferred from the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The ombudsman has highlighted in her evidence that she already feels a strong degree of independence from the Ministry of Defence on decision making. That matters, and I have echoed that in the Bill.

There are important circumstances where it is critical that the commissioner cannot act purely on their own initiative—I refer to the Secretary of State restricting access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason to do so. A legal power for the commissioner to act without influence or interference would make that impossible. Certainly in previous conversations, the Opposition have been keen to ensure a suitable qualification to the power to access secret and very sensitive sites, and the amendment would actually go against the argument that they have made elsewhere, so I hope that they will not press the amendment.

I thank the House for its views on amendments 5 and 6 from the Liberal Democrats on the appointment of the commissioner. It is our intention that the commissioner will be in place in 2026. The reason why we have had not only Second Reading and a full Committee stage but Report so soon into this new Government is that we want the commissioner put in place as soon as possible. Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.

Let me briefly refer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee. We expect robust scrutiny of any candidate that the Secretary of State puts forward for this role. We expect the relationship that the commissioner has with the Defence Committee to be above and beyond other relationships, because when the commissioner publishes a report, under the Bill, it will not be sent to the Ministry of Defence to decide what to do with it—except in the case of a national security scrub, and I am certain that every Member in this House will understand why that is. It will be sent to Parliament, including to the Defence Committee. In that respect, the relationship between the commissioner and the Defence Committee will be more enhanced than perhaps the relationship between the Service Complaints Ombudsman and the Committee.

On the robust decisions that the commissioner will make, my hon. Friend may be aware that on page 9 of the Bill, paragraph 7 of schedule 1 includes a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to interim roles if the full appointment process has not been completed. Given the powers afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the ability of that organisation to function is greatly restricted if there is a vacancy in that office. We have learned from that, and provided a power to ensure that the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner could continue in the absence of a permanent post holder. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am eager for the commissioner to be established, and for their office to be operational as soon as practically possible.

On amendment 3 on funding, the Bill has been designed to ensure that the commissioner has the tools, funding and support that they need, now and in future. The Secretary of State has an obligation in the Bill to give the commissioner any reasonable assistance that they request to conduct their work effectively. Should the commissioner feel that their funding—estimated to be in the region of £5 million a year—is insufficient, they can raise this in their annual report, which is one of the mechanisms for providing additional scrutiny to Parliament.

On the family definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, she will be aware that we have committed to setting out the definition of family members in secondary legislation, so that it can be updated if necessary. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and when trying to define “family”, it is important that we consult and get views from a wide range of people. We want to make sure that the definition in the legislation is as accurate as possible, and includes bereaved family members of service personnel, so that they can still access the commissioner. I hope that gives her reassurance.

On the inclusion of minority groups, speaking as someone who represents one of the minority communities that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, let me be clear that we want the commissioner to engage with a whole range of different communities in our armed forces family. It is important that they do. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a non-exhaustive list that left out people with disabilities would be a concern, because I think the hon. Lady’s intention is to focus on minorities. We would expect the commissioner to be able to make a decision themselves in order to deliver that engagement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?

[Luke Pollard]

As the right hon. Gentleman will recall from the Bill Committee, which in parliamentary sitting days was only a few days ago, we are raising issues around a number of things, including the one he raises. It is subject to a consultation, as he knows, so a decision has not been made. It is a responsibility for the Treasury, rather than the Ministry of Defence, but I undertook to write to him, and I will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?

[Maria Eagle]

Neither of the ships has been at sea for years—one since 2022 and the other since 2017—and neither was due to go back out to sea before their out-of-service date. The question of who might be said to have scrapped them is moot; the ships have not been scrapped, but we took the tough decision in November to retire ageing capabilities, so that we can save the money for dealing with the threats that we will face in future.

Service Accommodation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

For the record, I declare an interest: I participated in the inquiry while serving on the Committee in the previous Parliament. I thank the Committee Chairman for kindly pointing that out. Also for the record, we welcome the Annington decision, partly because we had done a lot of work on that prior to the election. I thank the Minister for playing fair on that.

Now that we have hopefully resolved the issue of the ownership of the estate, there is still the question of its management. Changing the ownership does not fix the boiler. Will the Chairman of the Committee be pleased to hear that, in the same bipartisan spirit, we are happy to work with the Department and Ministers to see if we can provide proposals for improving the management of the estate now that, hopefully, we have resolved the ownership question?

[Mr Dhesi]

The right hon. Gentleman is indeed right, not only in his considerable contribution to the deliberations relating to the service accommodation report, but in preceding years, when he served in such a distinguished manner on the Defence Committee, which, by the way, works on a cross-party basis and the report was agreed unanimously. He is also right to highlight that the management of the contracts will be essential. The Committee’s report has identified the serious problems and now the ball is in the Government’s court as to how they manage that. However, it is great to see the cross-party working and I hope that will help to address the issues in a more timely manner.

Ukraine

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement, which we on this side of the House warmly welcome.

As the Minister noted, last month marked the grim milestone of the 1000th day of Russia’s second unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine. Ever since Russian troops crossed the border, and even before, we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends. Indeed, relative to the size of our Army, we have gifted more military equipment to Ukraine than any other NATO partner, including the United States. As well as training Ukrainians in the UK since 2014, following the first Russian invasion, we have provided them with everything from NLAWs through to Challenger main battle tanks and almost all of our AS-90 heavy howitzers. We have also provided Ukraine with Brimstone and Storm Shadow missiles and a very considerable amount of ammunition, everything from small arms to 155 mm rounds, as well as helping to procure other ammunition on their behalf from around the globe.

When offered a way out of Kyiv immediately after the second Russian invasion in February 2022, President Zelensky defiantly retorted:

“I need ammunition, not a ride.”

We in Britain have subsequently provided quite a bit of it. Even more recently, we provided very high-tech systems such as advanced drones and the DragonFire anti-drone laser, which we initially procured and which the Ukrainians are putting into service. No one can doubt the commitment of Britain in support of Ukraine, and we are pleased to see this bipartisan approach continues under this Government, but we should not lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day Ukraine is a sovereign nation and only Ukrainian people can subsequently determine their own future.

I have five specific questions for the Minister on his statement. First, as he is aware, we have been training Ukrainian troops in Britain since 2014, initially under Op Orbital and now Op Interflex. The key element of this was training troops to operate NLAWs in sophisticated anti-tank ambushes, a capability vividly demonstrated in video footage shortly after Russian forces crossed the border. Without this critical training, it is no exaggeration to say the Russians might well be having lunch in Kyiv today. With that in mind, what further training does the Minister foresee for Ukrainian troops, what additional support will we provide, and will any of this training now be delivered in-country?

Secondly, how much of the £186 million from the international fund for Ukraine, which we co-ordinate, is from the UK and how much is from our allies? What, in other words, is the UK proportion?

Thirdly, as the statement specifically referred to the supply of respirators, can the Minister confirm intelligence reports that the Russians have now even resorted to limited use of blister agent-type chemical weapons in Ukraine? Is that true?

Fourthly, we have been unwavering in our military, political and diplomatic support for Ukraine as well as generous in providing equipment and ammunition. However, this raises concerns about replenishing our own war stocks, as highlighted by the Defence Committee, which I served on in the previous Parliament, including, indeed, on that inquiry. Six months ago the Chief of the General Staff announced clear objectives to double the lethality of the British Army by 2027 and treble it by the end of the decade. What steps are being taken to replenish the UK’s war stocks? More specifically, how do the Government plan to achieve the CGS’s ambitious commitment?

Finally, the changes the Minister has announced today clearly feed into the ongoing strategic defence review, yet there are emerging media reports that the much-anticipated SDR publication may be delayed until June next year to now coincide with the comprehensive spending review. Ministers now appear to be sticking to a mantra that the SDR will be published in the first half of next year, which is commensurate with that timeline. With the worsening international situation and given that the initial conclusions have apparently already been seen by the Defence Secretary and even the Prime Minister, we cannot afford six months of paralysis by analysis while the Government decide how to respond. So can the Minister end on a positive note and tell the House today when the SDR will be published and assure us it will not be as late as next June?

Slava Ukraini.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

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.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to underline that issue and its importance. While recognising that everybody came together to do their best and to make it happen, I want to move on to speaking about Ukraine, if I may.

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

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I would like to say that he has spoken powerfully about the work that was undertaken by British armed forces personnel during the troubles, and subsequently in addressing the unexploded ordnance threat in Northern Ireland. When I was the Armed Forces Minister, I had the privilege of visiting one of those units and seeing for myself the incredible work that it did. Would he join me—and, I am sure, all Members this morning—in paying tribute to those incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives day after day to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. Having read my Order Paper over coffee, may I offer you my congratulations on your appointment to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee? It is an extremely responsible post in which we all have utter confidence that you will do very well. Good luck, Sir.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

[Mr Francois]

Perhaps I should begin by declaring a personal family interest in this subject. My late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay from 1943 until the second world war ended, so he was involved in bomb disposal of a sort. Perhaps more accurately it was mine disposal, but nevertheless he personally faced a threat from large explosive devices, albeit in a maritime context. As his son, I am proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on this very important subject this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so ably. She made a very knowledgeable contribution, no doubt drawing on her own military experience. In particular, she illustrated the challenge posed to the international community by the sheer scale of this problem around the world.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the threat from terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland, which is a subject to which I would like to return. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Calvin Bailey)—an RAF veteran, if I may call him that—also addressed the international scale of the challenge. Last but not least, I am supported by our shadow Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who as a former Royal Marine, like the Minister, understands quite a lot about the subject.

I would like to begin my own contribution with a historical perspective on bomb disposal operations in the British armed forces, before moving on to address both military and, increasingly, civilian operations in this crucial field of activity, right up to the present day. Bomb disposal, or, to give it its more formal title, explosive ordnance disposal—EOD for short—can be traced back for over a century. During the first world war, squads of men were assembled to help deal with unexploded bombs left after raids on London and the south east by German zeppelin bombers and their Gotha Giant aircraft counterparts—a bombing campaign that was very well summarised by Neil Hanson in his book “First Blitz”.

In addition, with the advent of truly industrialised warfare in the first world war, teams of engineers were needed to dispose of unexploded munitions, particularly high explosive shells that had fallen among the allied trenches on the western front but failed to detonate. Even at that time, this was highly skilled and extremely dangerous work—a characteristic that has remained true right through to the present day.

By the time of the second world war, although the need for bomb disposal on the battlefield was undiminished, with the advent of the mass bombing of civilian targets, the need for bomb disposal on the home front expanded accordingly. This led to a high death toll among those brave enough to undertake the task of dealing with unexploded bombs—or UXBs, as they were characterised at that time. Juliet Gardiner, in her book entitled simply “The Blitz”, describes the losses in the following terms, which I think are quite evocative:

“Sometimes a UXB might embed itself a few feet in the ground, or fall into a static water tank or a gasometer but many penetrated deep below the surface and were difficult to get at. The defusers’ survival would have depended on staying one step ahead of German technology, since as soon as they learnt how one time delay mechanism worked, it would be replaced by another. By the end of 1940, 123 officers and men of the bomb disposal squads had been killed and 67 wounded. The deaths did not cease with the end of the war, as UXB’s continued to be uncovered. By 1947, 490 had been killed in the battle to extract these great torpid iron pigs from their holes and render them harmless.”

The need for EOD workers continued as a facet of British military operations since the end of the second world war, right up to the present day. For instance, dealing with both republican and so-called loyalist bombs was a key facet of Operation Banner, the British Army’s campaign to support the civil authorities during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A number of bomb disposal officers were killed and many were wounded during the course of the troubles, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly reminded us.

The scale of the task that they were up against was well summarised by Desmond Hamill in his book “Pig in the Middle” about the British Army’s role in Northern Ireland. He summarised the challenge as follows:

“Over the years the Provisionals have become expert at designing and manufacturing booby-traps. Only the week before, a bomb disposal sergeant had been killed by a bomb within a bomb in County Fermanagh. It had been packed into a milk churn, and when the sergeant had cleared the timing device and was lifting it out, a detonator underneath set off the second bomb which exploded.”

As the author went on to explain:

“The bombs were often very simple and very deadly. The components were readily available—a few pounds of explosives, a detonator, a battery and a couple of feet of wire. The triggering device could either be a plate buried in the ground or even a clothes peg.”

As the Minister will be well aware, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers served on Operation Banner during the troubles. Hundreds were killed, not just in bomb disposal, and many thousands were maimed or had life-changing injuries, from both republican and so-called loyalist terrorism. Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could say a few words about why the Government still intend to abolish the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which will leave many Northern Ireland veterans open, yet again, to an endless cycle of reinvestigation, much of it politically motivated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Our veterans, who faced the threat of terrorist bombs every day of their service in Northern Ireland, really do deserve better than this from their Government.

Let me turn to the Falklands. Diffusing unexploded bombs is not just a challenge on land, as pointed out by Lord Ashcroft in his book “Falklands War Heroes”. During the 1982 Falklands war, chief marine engineering mechanic Michael Townsend was awarded the distinguished service medal for his role in assisting with the disposal of two bombs that had hit his ship, HMS Argonaut. The principal bomb disposal task with which he assisted was undertaken by Staff Sergeant Jim Prescott and Warrant Officer Second Class John Phillips, both of the Royal Engineers.

Assisted by Townsend and several of the crew, the two bomb disposal experts succeeded in disarming and disposing both Argentinian bombs that had landed on the Argonaut. Unfortunately, however, Staff Sergeant Prescott, from 49 Squadron Royal Engineers, was killed two days later while attempting a similar task with two further unexploded bombs that had landed on HMS Argonaut’s sister ship, HMS Antelope. His colleague WO2 Phillips was badly injured, losing one of his arms in the latter attempt. I mention that particular example not just to pay tribute to the extreme bravery of all three men involved, one of whom sadly lost his life, but also to point out that dealing with ordnance of this type is not purely confined to the land domain.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

I would like to link that point back to the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, when he shared some powerful words about his grandfather—

[Mr Francois]

My father.

[Mr Bailey]

His father’s service—I did not want to age the right hon. Gentleman—in the maritime domain. That example was a powerful reminder that explosive ordnance disposal is not simply confined to landmines or the devices we see as bombs. Building on that, I want to highlight the contributions of the Royal Navy today—its divers in particular and its ongoing mine clearance operations in the Gulf, alongside our US partners and the French navy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we must ensure that we continue to highlight such valid and brave contributions?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about my father. I absolutely agree with him about the very important role played by the Royal Navy in maritime bomb disposal, including by the brave divers he alluded to. For completeness, as the hon. Gentleman is a former RAF officer, we should place on record that a great deal of work was undertaken in the second world war defusing German bombs that had landed on RAF airfields, perhaps most famously during the battle of Britain—so the Royal Air Force played its part in the battle against bombs as well.

I turn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the involvement of Britain’s armed forces, particularly the Army, switched from Northern Ireland through the Balkans and then into the middle east, including the first and second Gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan, again the threat from bombs—often referred to at that time as improvised explosive devices or IEDs—remained ever present. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, recalled in his memoir “Leading From The Front”,

“Initially the Taliban had taken us on with small arms, machine guns and rocket grenades, but as they tired of being killed in large numbers they resorted to the classic insurgent tactic of avoiding direct combat and attacking us instead with IEDs, in exactly the same way as the Iraqi militias and the provisional IRA had done before them.”

The Minister himself served in Afghanistan, and we pay tribute to him for his service. The need to respond to the IED threat, which was eventually responsible for a large number of casualties—both fatal and non-fatal, but none the less in many cases life-changing—was an important aspect particularly of Operation Herrick, the allied campaign in Afghanistan. As Simon Akam explained in his challenging book “The Changing of the Guard: the British Army since 9/11”,

“The IED became the signature weapon of the Helmand Conflict. No longer could troops move freely; instead they adopted the ‘Afghan snake’, painstakingly walking in a line behind a young soldier holding a Vallon Mine Detector.”

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former Milton Keynes MP and a previous Minister for the Armed Forces, worked on EOD disposal during Operation Herrick. We pay tribute to him and all his EOD colleagues for their service.

Even today, the task of explosive ordnance disposal—now carried out principally by 11 EOD regiments of the Royal Logistics Corps—remains as vital as ever, both in protecting our civilian population from domestic acts of terrorism and in permitting the conduct of military operations. Some of the savage fighting in Ukraine has included the widespread use of booby traps and other IEDs, and therefore the threat remains as live as ever on the modern battlefield. Indeed, in its helpful briefing note for this important debate, the Mines Advisory Group highlights that the Ukrainian Government estimate that about a third of their territory, or 156,000 sq km —an area bigger than England—remains potentially contaminated with explosive ordnance.

For the record, the previous Government invested in the latest EOD technology for our own armed forces, including the Harris T7 bomb disposal robot, which is the successor of the iconic Wheelbarrow from Northern Ireland, and, more recently, the T7’s highly nimble little brother, the Harris T4—a programme that was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) when he was the Procurement Minister at the MOD.

Let me turn directly to the speech by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who summarised very well the challenge still posed by unexplained ordnance in the present day—not just, as she pointed out, in Ukraine, but in a number of other countries around the world, including Laos and Lebanon. We should pay tribute to the work of two UK-led organisations, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which have led the world in seeking to step up and to address the challenge.

Given all this, in addition to responding to my point about the legacy Act, will the Minister answer three specific questions? First, are the Government minded to continue spending at least the same amount on overseas mine disposal in 2025-26 as they are spending in 2024-25? Secondly, much of that spending is deployed via the FCDO’s GMAP and the UK’s integrated security fund; is any of that funding from the MOD budget, and if so, could it be vulnerable to the strategic defence review? The third question is related to the second: when do we expect the outcome of the SDR to be published? I ask that this morning because rumours are now circulating that it could be as late as June 2025. While we have the Minister’s company this morning, could he provide an update about the likely timing of the publication of the SDR? As he knows, it is keenly anticipated.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those personnel, be they from the armed forces or civilians, who have had the courage to take part in the extremely dangerous task of explosive ordnance disposal across the decades. It is harrowing work, and not for the faint hearted. In risking their lives, they have helped to save the lives of countless others. Sadly, a number of those employed in that highly dangerous line of work made the ultimate sacrifice, and we rightly pay tribute to them this morning as well. We will remember them.