Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Mike Martin

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?

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Debate between Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Mike Martin

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the horror of Russia’s renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine; further recognises the necessity of a Ukrainian victory over Russia; agrees that the United Kingdom must do all it can to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression; acknowledges that there are approximately $300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the G7 and EU; and calls on the Government to investigate ways that these frozen assets could be legally seized and used to fund the war effort in Ukraine, and to report back to the House with its findings.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, and colleagues from across the House for coming together to debate this important motion.

Sasha is 12 and from Mariupol. He was cooking outside with his mother, because their apartment had been bombed, when they were shelled. Some shrapnel went into Sasha’s eye, imperilling his eyesight. Luckily, they managed to get to a first aid station, where the shrapnel was removed and, thankfully, his eyesight was saved. Shortly after, they were captured by Russian forces and taken to a filtration camp, where they were separated—“You go over there, and you go over there”—and not even allowed to say goodbye to each other. We have echoes of that in our European history.

Sasha was taken to a further location in occupied Ukraine. He was told that his mother did not want him anymore, and that he would be sent to live with a good Russian family. Sasha is braver, cleverer and more tenacious than me, and he managed to get hold of a mobile phone. He rang his grandmother and told her where he was. Through an extraordinary series of events and organisations, his grandmother managed to get him out of that situation, and he now lives with her. Sasha does not know if his mum is dead or alive, and he is still looking for her.

Extraordinarily, Sasha is one of the lucky ones. He escaped his abduction, his Russification and indoctrination, and being severed forever from his birth family and placed—“adopted” is the term that is used—with a Russian family. We cannot say the same for at least 19,000 other Ukrainian children. The Ukrainian Government have verified and documented 19,000 cases of Ukrainian children being taken from Ukraine, placed with Russian families, and told to forget Ukraine and to love Russia. That is one of the smaller estimates. The United Nations thinks 120,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia. I have experienced war, so I think I have a good handle on the full range of human behaviour, but extraordinarily, there are Russian officials who are boasting about the number of Ukrainian children they have abducted and placed with Russian families. Estimates range from 300,000 to 700,000.

Crimes like that do not go unnoticed. In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, who has possibly the most Orwellian job title—children’s rights commissioner for the President of the Russian Federation—for the war crime of unlawful abduction, deportation and transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia. Worse still, that crime amounts to genocide, because the abduction of children and their indoctrination into another culture is considered genocide. There are echoes here of Europe’s past. Never again, they said—never again.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing today’s important debate. It has been nearly three years since Putin tried to illegally invade the whole of Ukraine, leading to devastating loss of life, displacement and destruction. We must of course ensure that Ukraine has all the support it needs, but surely it should not just be my Slough constituents and UK taxpayers contributing. Given that Russia and Putin are no longer listening to the international community, and show no signs of stopping, is it not time for our Government to use frozen Russian assets to ensure that Putin pays directly for the damage that he is inflicting on the Ukrainian people?

[Mike Martin]

I thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. He is of course right, and that is why we have come here today. As I make progress with my speech, I will set out some of the arguments.

“Never again” leaves us with a moral question: how do we answer the genocidal abduction of children on European soil? It also leaves us with a strategic question, to which I will now turn.