Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise primarily to address amendment 5, just referred to by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), which would directly impact the role of the Defence Committee, which I have the honour and privilege of chairing.

Amendment 5 would enshrine in law an enhanced version of Select Committee pre-appointment scrutiny. That is significant because, in most cases, such scrutiny is a matter of political agreement rather than legislation. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Defence Committee for the preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner. That mirrors the existing arrangement for the Service Complaints Ombudsman, which is the only defence-related post currently subject to that form of scrutiny. The Defence Committee last conducted such a hearing in December 2024 for the current ombudsman.

It is likely that our scrutiny of the Armed Forces Commissioner candidate will be both our first and final pre-appointment hearing in this Parliament. Let me clarify the purpose of pre-appointment scrutiny. It aims to examine the quality of ministerial decision making and appointments, assure the public that key public appointments are merit-based, demonstrate the candidate’s independence of mind and bolster the appointee’s legitimacy in their role. It is crucial to understand that this process does not replicate the recruitment process—we cannot assess the candidate pool or suggest alternatives. Our primary task is to evaluate how the preferred candidate performs under public scrutiny.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the Chair of the Defence Committee agree that it is a question not merely of scrutiny but of approval? If the Committee, which he so ably chairs, decides that the persons brought before them are not fit for that role, is it not up to the Secretary of State to find somebody else who can obtain the approval of Committee?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has made a massive impact on the workings of the Defence Committee, of which he is a member. I will directly address the issue that he raises very shortly—patience is a virtue.

In the Public Bill Committee, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that our scrutiny should be vigorous and thorough. I assure the House that, given appropriate time and opportunity, it will be exactly that. The Minister also expressed expectations in Committee for our scrutiny to go above and beyond the current process. I seek clarity on that point: how do the Government envisage the Defence Committee exceeding the current process without procedural changes? I would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on that. Do the Government have specific proposals to enable us to go above and beyond?

My second question for the Government is about implementation—the subject of amendment 6. Following a pre-appointment hearing, the Defence Committee will recommend either appointing or rejecting the preferred candidate. For this process to be meaningful, the implementation plan must account for the possibility, however remote, of the Secretary of State facing a negative Committee opinion, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) has just alluded to. The Service Complaints Ombudsman has informed us that, under current legislation, casework processing halts without an ombudsman in post. We must avoid a scenario where rejecting a candidate would so severely impact service personnel, the ombudsman team and the broader transition that approval would become the only viable option. I seek assurances that this consideration is already part of implementation planning, so I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that point.

The ombudsman also raised broader transition concerns in her evidence to the Defence Committee just last week. I trust that the Minister is aware of these issues and is addressing them seriously. Other amendments address the commissioner’s independence, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell alluded to, minority group experiences in the armed forces and the commissioner’s remit. These echo questions that our Committee has raised with the Secretary of State in our published correspondence. I hope that the Government will carefully consider these points, regardless of whether they accept the amendments.

I eagerly await the Minister’s responses to my two questions: how does he expect the Defence Committee to go above and beyond the current pre-appointment scrutiny process, and will he assure the House that the implementation plan accommodates the possibility of needing to extend the recruitment process, and will not be put at risk if the Defence Committee recommends against appointing a candidate?