Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is interesting to be taking part in a debate that has such an outbreak of consensus—indeed, it is a bit unsettling in this particular Chamber. However, the Scottish National party will be doing nothing to rock the boat given that we welcome the role of Armed Forces Commissioner, especially their authority to investigate welfare complaints from our armed forces. This has been a long time coming. The welcome superseding of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a vital element that allows servicemen and women recourse to a functioning complaint system outwith the chain of command is only going to be good news, and will be in step with the ambitions of many right hon. and hon. Members.

I take this opportunity to commend the foresight of my friend and colleague, the former Member for West Dunbartonshire, Martin Docherty-Hughes, who brought forward his Armed Forces Representative Body Bill in 2019. If that Bill had been supported, it would have achieved many of the same aims as this Bill but five years earlier. Nevertheless, a key development now is the ability of the commissioner to visit defence establishments unannounced and commission reports on what they find there. That is a central and vital improvement over the demonstrably inadequate powers of the ombudsman. The reports will face the scrutiny of colleagues in this Chamber and of the Defence Committee, which is welcome. I know that that scrutiny will be applied with rigour.

The Bill should go a long way towards shining a light on the manifold circumstances in which many in our armed forces and their families have been treated poorly by successive UK Governments. Much of that has been caused by disastrous privatisation misadventures pursued for short-term gains at the expense of long-term value; our men and women in uniform, together with their families, pay the price for that suboptimal policy in their daily lives and routines. We should also note that the issues facing armed forces personnel are already extremely well known, documented and understood within and outwith this Chamber. What the commissioner must reveal, therefore, is the depth and scale of these issues. As has already been touched on, that will necessarily make difficult reading for the ministerial team. I salute their ability to leave themselves open to that scrutiny.

A key factor driving the poor experiences of armed forces personnel is the perpetual misallocation of funding and a lack of political will to establish a verifiable balance between the demands of the state on the armed forces to deliver defence and security, and the vote of funding allocated to the armed forces by the same state to deliver against that priority. Everything has an upper elastic limit, and if the Government do not get their act together on allocating 2.5% of GDP for defence, I greatly fear that our armed forces will exceed their upper limit very soon—commissioner or not. From the junior ranks to the Chief of the Defence Staff, they are asking for nothing other than long-term clarity to allow them to deliver long-term stability.

A key performance indicator of any large organisation, especially one with such an unenviable relationship with recruitment and retention, is morale. That is a key reason why people are leaving in such huge numbers, at tremendous cost to defence in financial and operational ways. The solutions to many of these problems are fairly straightforward, but expensive. They include properly maintained housing stock, better mental health support, better support for families when people are deployed, and decent pay—all of which are outwith the remit of any commissioner. The Bill represents a welcome stride forward, but it is no silver bullet to fix life in the UK armed forces.

As we have already heard, almost 60% of personnel report low morale. Only a third are satisfied with the welfare support that their family receive when they return from deployment, and many personnel live in poor accommodation. Perhaps most importantly for the commissioner, only 23% of serving personnel think that leaders will take meaningful action to address issues identified in the continuous attitude survey. That is not a great report card for this or the previous Government, but it is certainly a starter for 10 for the commissioner.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to welcome the 20 hours of wraparound childcare for service personnel serving overseas that the Government announced this weekend, which will save serving families £3,400?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As the MP for Sandhurst, I am proud to represent the home of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, where every British Army officer starts their journey of service; it is important to reflect that in recent years that service has not necessarily been repaid by us. I am alarmed that only four in 10 service personnel are satisfied with service life, and the fact that the armed forces are shrinking due to a recruitment and retention crisis should worry us all.

With that in mind, I warmly welcome the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner, as part of the Government’s overall plans to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve us. It is vital that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be independent. I noted with interest the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chair of the Defence Committee, on that point; I also noted the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) that the overwhelming proof of that independence will be whether the commissioner is in a position to shine a light on welfare matters, to address issues of culture and to raise the quality of service life. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. On that note, it is welcome that the commissioner will be able to bring their reports to Parliament for us to scrutinise. It is also vital that the role should be a powerful voice for service families; those who serve are too often constrained by the lack of support for those who support them in their important role. I also welcome the proactive investigatory powers of the Armed Forces Commissioner.

The Bill is welcome, but it is important to note that it is only part of a wider commitment to supporting our armed forces, which includes decent pay rises, with 35% more pay for recruits; £3.5 million more to support veterans facing homelessness; and the expansion of the veterans card as an approved form of voter ID. It will be digitised, too. This weekend, 20 hours of wraparound childcare for service personnel serving overseas was announced, which will save families £3,400. That is important because too often serving members of our armed forces find that their families at home are not given the support while they serve our country overseas. That has to change in a modern world where—in the armed forces, as in the rest of society—two members of a household will often be working. It is important for us to give that support for family care, including to single parents who are serving.

Finally, I take this opportunity to reflect on the grim anniversary that we face tomorrow: 1,000 days since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This is an important moment to reflect on the sacrifice and service we ask of our armed forces, as we look to the brave service of Ukrainian soldiers facing up to the aggression of Putin’s illegal war. The world is a more dangerous place. We ask a great deal of those who serve for us, and they do so knowing that they may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. With that in mind, it is vital that we renew our contract with those who serve us, so that we serve them. The Bill is an important step in getting that right.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation.

I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu.

One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls.

On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it.

The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that.

None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right. We have to have that zero tolerance approach, not only because it is right for our service personnel who sacrifice so much and for their families, but because it strengthens our whole armed forces. That is why it was so important to see that focus on personnel in the strategic defence review. Will the Minister reflect briefly on the connection between the Armed Forces Commissioner and the strategic defence review in turning around the issue we have had with retention in our armed forces and finally getting to grips with that crisis?