PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill - 3 June 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 2 and 3, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 4 to 7.

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to the House. I rise to speak to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were proposed by the Government in the other place, as well as Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were proposed by the Opposition and to which we have proposed an amendment in lieu to strengthen them.

Before I start, I would like to recognise the publication of the strategic defence review yesterday, which signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence. We made clear then, as I do today, that our people are at the heart of defence. The strategic defence review sets out our mission to look after our people better, to unlock their full potential, and to build a “one defence” culture that is focused, inclusive, respectful, and centred on valuing all contributions. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner is a key part of that mission.

I thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important piece of legislation. It is a landmark step in this Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and to strengthen support for our armed forces and the families who stand behind those who serve our nation. I extend my thanks in particular to Lord Coaker, the Minister in the House of Lords, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place. I also thank Baroness Goldie, the Earl of Minto, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord Stirrup, Lord Stansgate, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Lord Beamish and Baroness Newlove, to name just a few who made valuable contributions in the other place on this important piece of legislation.

Seven amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Before I turn to them, I remind colleagues that this Bill is part of a manifesto commitment made by Labour during the general election to improve the service life of all those who serve and, importantly, to provide for the very first time an opportunity for family members to raise concerns about service welfare as well.

I think all of us in the House very much welcome the Armed Forces Commissioner. We have a new commissioner in Northern Ireland who is doing an excellent job. There is also a role for local councils to deliver the armed forces covenant. For councils in Northern Ireland that are perhaps hesitant—I am being very gentle with my words here—to fully integrate the covenant, will they be encouraged to embrace in totality the opportunities that the Bill provides? Everything in the Bill is good, and I think the Government need to be congratulated on all they are doing.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented.

For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill.

I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure.

I recently met the mother of Jaysley Beck, who tragically took her own life after being sexually assaulted and abused within the services. I was really impressed by her mother’s strength and her campaign. Does the Minister agree that the Bill will give more powers to family members, and that maybe we can avoid these tragic incidents in future?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a serious case and a real tragedy, not just for the family of Gunner Beck but our entire armed forces. It needs to be a wake-up call, where we recognise that the behaviour within some of our services is unacceptable and that we need to make improvements. For that very reason we must continue to support the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, because it will enable family members as well as those serving in uniform to raise genuine service welfare complaints with the commissioner.

It will not solve every problem we have with the culture in our armed forces, but it provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. My hon. Friend mentions a conversation she had with Gunner Beck’s family, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that to make sure that we properly learn the lessons that defence needs to learn.

I am proud to come from a naval family and to say clearly from this Dispatch Box that the families of our armed forces matter. For the very first time, this Bill will give them a say and allow them to raise concerns. Family members are a crucial element of the commissioner’s remit, and we agree that the definition of a relevant family member should be subject to parliamentary debate and approval. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), raised that point on Second Reading, and we support it. We are moving it from the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure, which will enable that discussion to take place.

Lords amendment 7 is a technical amendment that is consequential on clause 3, and I invite the House to support it. Clause 3 amends section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006 to specify that a “person” rather than only an “officer” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible. This is an evolution of the way that the service complaints system has worked and is a prudent change to make.

The Minister mentions family members and other individuals raising complaints, but some of the complaints will be about devolved issues such as health, education and other issues that affect families. Can he reassure me that the Armed Force Commissioner will have an effective method of working with the devolved Administrations to make sure that the concerns of armed forces across the UK can be addressed?

My hon. Friend is right that defence is a reserved matter, and so it is appropriate for this place to introduce a UK-wide Armed Forces Commissioner. It is also right that whoever is appointed to the role of Armed Forces Commissioner is able to raise issues of concern with the Administrations in every part of the United Kingdom—whether it is London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. Equally, they should be able to engage with local councils. The Armed Forces Commissioner role builds on the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, who already has a good working relationship with the devolved Administrations, so I am certain that whoever is appointed to role will be able to build on that and make sure that, for instance, if a housing issue is highlighted by someone based in Scotland, that can be raised with the appropriate individuals in the Scottish Government.

Lords amendment 7 will ensure that the language in section 340N of the 2006 Act is also updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is no inconsistency in the legislation.

I will now turn to Lords amendments 2 and 3 and the debate that took place in the other place about whistleblowing. I thank Baroness Goldie, one of the previous Defence Ministers in the House of Lords, in whose name the amendments were tabled, for her characteristically considered and constructive contributions to the Bill’s passage and for raising a serious issue. The amendments seek to introduce a new general function for the commissioner

“to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members,”

and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this Bill.

We believe that the amendments, while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matter that they choose; anyone can raise an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie’s amendment; and the commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence, and reports directly to Parliament and not to senior officers nor to Ministers.

I acknowledge the many merits of the Bill. However, it seems that Baroness Goldie was seeking to ensure that women such as those abused at the army college in Harrogate, near my constituency, and other victims have a clear and well-known route called whistleblowing. I urge the Government to not underestimate that whistleblowing presents a real opportunity to encourage people to come forward.

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.

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?

Certainly, the consequence of one of our proposed objectives with the Bill—making it easier for people to raise an issue about service life and to have that addressed—is improved retention. We know that people have concerns about service life. Housing is a good example, and yesterday’s strategic defence review allocated £1.5 billion to improve it. However, we need to make sure that we are reflecting on our approach, and for me there is a good reason we do so, which is based on warfighting. In the event that our people are asked to commit to combat, every member of our forces should know that regardless of the skin colour or religion of the people standing beside them in the trench, or of who they love, they will have their back, and they will have their back consistently. That equality of service is vital to military discipline and to upholding our values, and it is also something that we still need to work on. For that reason, we need to make sure that the Bill passes and can be implemented swiftly.

We want people to trust the commissioner and feel confident that their issues will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences as a result of coming forward. As such, I have tabled an amendment in lieu that would go further than Baroness Goldie’s amendments and ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints.

I note with interest the Government’s amendment in lieu. Does the Minister agree that, in all of this, which is unobjectionable in the main, there is a concern not around the person making the complaint but around the person about whom the complaint is made? As we live in an increasingly litigious society—the number of service complaints are going up and the number of cases considered by the ombudsman has been going up—it is likely that the Armed Forces Commissioner’s work and the number of people complained about will go up. Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient support for those about whom complaints are made, since the distress that it causes when those complaints are unfounded, or unfounded in part, is significant?

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has experience as a Minister who covered this area in the last Government. He is right that we need to reflect on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are looking after our whole force.

It is true that there are issues that we believe are not being addressed because there is not a sufficient spotlight being shone on them. It is for that reason that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill provides for a reporting function not to Ministers or the Chief of the Defence Staff, but to Parliament. Indeed, I believe the Defence Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is likely to receive those reports. It is precisely for those reasons that I believe the commissioner may be able to offer a view as to how the system they oversee will be able not only to protect victims and perpetrators, and seek justice with perpetrators, but deal with people who may be falsely accused. Largely, I expect general service welfare matters to be the predominant piece of activity for the commissioner, rather than necessarily looking at individual aspects of abuse or misbehaviour for which there is already a legal system within defence that can address some of those. As a whole, however, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

In addition to the amendment that we have tabled in lieu, the Government have also committed in the other place to updating their current Raising a Concern policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under the policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. That will include provisions related to anonymity and confidentiality, and ensure that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to the raising of that concern.

Further, the Government will conduct a thorough communications campaign to ensure that members of our armed forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how to access their office, how it interacts with existing policy protections and policy, the type of issues that can be raised, and how they will be dealt with.

Taken together, our Government amendment and the additional commitments that I have outlined today and that Lord Coaker outlined to the House of Lords will establish genuine protections for people wishing to raise concerns anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their family members in a way that we cannot envisage would be achieved by Lords amendments 2 and 3 on their own.

This Bill is a critical step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. For the first time, we are providing them and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised in due course by Parliament, and in turn for the Government—this Government and any Government in the future—to be held to account. That can only be a positive thing. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

In Southend and Rochford I have had the pleasure of meeting many veterans and service people, men and women, who keep our country safe. An Armed Forces Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for those serving and their families, and will have direct authority to investigate welfare complaints from housing to kit to issues affecting family life. As a former soldier myself, I know that losing a lot of kit happened often, but I digress. This role comes alongside record amounts of funding for the armed forces and housing, so I am sure that colleagues across the House are extremely proud—

Order. The hon. Member really ought not to be making a mini-speech. Perhaps he is drawing his comments to a close.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure colleagues across the House are extremely proud of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that this Bill is an opportunity for us to show a united Chamber in support of our armed forces and that colleagues should support it?

I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments.

For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families.

I call shadow Minister Mark Francois.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best.

As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise.

To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled.

A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they?

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. I have sat in this House on, I think, all the occasions when we have been discussing defence, and I was also sorry to note that there were no Reform Members here for either the VE Day debate or the Remembrance Day debate. Does he agree that that shows the complete dereliction of a party that aspires to govern?

For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.

At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.

That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that

“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.

He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.

The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.

The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?

Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.

To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.

Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.

In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.

I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

As we consider the Lords amendments to the Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the progress made and the important issues that these amendments address.

I am pleased to support Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which enhance parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation under the Bill. The Government’s support for those amendments is a positive step towards greater transparency and accountability in the implementation of this important legislation.

I also want to highlight the significance of whistleblower protection. Lords amendments 2 and 3 rightly draw attention to the need to safeguard those who come forward with concerns. I welcome His Majesty’s official Opposition’s efforts to bring attention to this issue and to the Government’s commitment to this principle, particularly through the amendments they have tabled in lieu, which aim to protect the anonymity of individuals making complaints. That is essential for fostering a culture of openness and trust within our armed forces and ensuring the Armed Forces Commissioner has the confidence of serving personnel and those who make complaints.

I am grateful to the Armed Forces Minister for his clarification on the matter just now. As Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to reiterate that our Committee very much looks forward to holding a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the first Armed Forces Commissioner—a vital step in ensuring the independence and effectiveness of this new office.

Finally, as this is likely our last opportunity to debate the Bill in the House, I look forward to its passage into law and thank all those who have been involved in drafting and amending the Bill as it has made its way through both Houses.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 2 and 3, which were tabled by Conservative peer Baroness Goldie and supported in the other place by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject the Government’s proposals to remove them and replace them with a watered-down version. The amendments do something simple but profoundly important: they embed within the commissioner’s role a clear and explicit whistleblowing function, one that empowers service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare and wrongdoing safely and with confidence, and, crucially, one that provides statutory protections for those who speak up.

A complaints process and a whistleblowing system have two different purposes. A complaint is often about personal redress whereas a whistleblowing disclosure is about drawing attention to serious wrongdoing, often at great personal risk in the public interest. The Government’s amendment in lieu acknowledges the importance of anonymity, but it does not go far enough. It merely inserts a provision to protect identifying details in publishing reports and only where the disclosure was “in response to a request”. It neither defines nor protects whistleblowers in statute.

Whistleblowing is a vital tool in surfacing systemic failure—something that our service personnel clearly need. It seems like almost every month brave service personnel and veterans come forward with shocking accounts of misconduct. Their accounts underline how much courage it takes to speak up and how easily that courage can be crushed by fear of social backlash, reprisal or career damage. The Government argued that anyone can raise a concern with the commissioner and that data protection law already protects anonymity, but data protection is not the same as whistleblower protection. It is passive and does not actively encourage disclosures, does not instil confidence and does not grant status or safeguards against retaliation.

The whistleblowing amendments would not overburden the commissioner; they would simply recognise whistleblowing for what it is: a unique and necessary channel for uncovering wrongdoing that might otherwise be buried. They are tightly drawn, limited to welfare matters, and designed to ensure that information reaches someone with the authority to act. The commissioner will be tasked with improving the culture and confidence among our armed forces. Nothing would do more to support that mission than keeping the amendments, which would introduce a whistleblowing function, giving our brave service personnel and their families an independent, trusted person to whom they can speak safely and be heard without fear.

I will vote against the Government motion to remove Lords amendments 2 and 3, and I urge colleagues to do the same. The amendments give confidence to those who wish to speak up, but who are afraid of the consequences. “Whistleblowing” is a simple, clear and well-understood term that can provide extra assurance. It could make this Bill truly transformative to the armed forces culture.

Yesterday’s strategic defence review rightly put our brave service personnel at the heart of defence plans, and this Bill is a fundamental part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was an honour to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the amendments made in the other place, which improve the Bill. However, I support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3.

Lords amendments 2 and 3 would introduce a new general function for the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, but the House will know that the commissioner can already investigate any general service matters that they choose, and the Bill already allows anyone who wishes to raise such issues to do so. While the Lords amendments have been important in raising issues around anonymity for whistleblowers, Government amendment (a) would go further by ensuring genuine protection for people who raise an issue that later features in an investigation and report by the commissioner.

I rise to speak to Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 2 and 3. We have seen time and again how important it is to allow our service personnel to speak up in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our armed forces and the success of critical missions. The 1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash, the 2005 loss of the C-130 Hilton 22, and the 2006 loss of Nimrod XV230 serve as stark reminders of what happens when concerns are not openly reported. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to maintaining anonymity by ensuring that no identifying information, or information that could lead to identification, is included without the explicit consent of service members. I also welcome the Government’s assurance that they will update the MOD’s “raising a concern” policy to reflect civilian protections and ensure that all individuals who come forward can do so with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality.

Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that referencing such awful disasters really brings into focus the lack of public awareness of the lack of support for our armed forces in previous years, and that this landmark Labour Bill will transform the culture in our forces in a positive way and is long overdue?

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.

Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.

Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform—

They are not here!

Indeed they are not.

We need to restore trust and deliver meaningful change for all of those who serve.

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate in the time that we have left. On behalf of the Government, I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is widespread support for the principle of introducing an Armed Forces Commissioner, for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit to include relevant family members, and for us to get on and implement the Bill well, which I can assure the shadow Minister is our intention.

I will refer to a number of the points that have been raised in today’s debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) that we need to ensure that the system works. The Bill in front of us is not designed to adjust the procedures, policies or process of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces as it transitions into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s Office, but it is designed to expand the powers of SCOAF. The current Service Complaints Ombudsman has been asking for that in her annual reports, and we have provided an expanded remit in the Bill in front of us. I share my hon. Friend’s determination to see an improved system, and I place on record my thanks to Mariette Hughes, the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, for her work in reducing the backlog of service complaints that were not being addressed. In Committee we heard about the progress that has been made, which was very welcome, and I am certain that that improvement will be embedded in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner as well.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, and we owe our veterans from Operation Banner a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and helped bring about peace. There will be no rewriting of history. However, the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help those veterans. Over and over again, it was found to be unlawful by the UK courts, and any incoming Government at the last general election would have had to repeal and replace that unlawful legislation—it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

We must ensure that the legacy mechanisms in place are fair, lawful and proportionate, and we are working hard to ensure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and we can minimise the impact on this unique group of veterans. As we replace the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act, we will prioritise and strengthen the protections to ensure the dignity and respect of veterans, and I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will look forward to further discussions on this issue should the Petitions Committee grant a debate.

It has often been said that the courts rejected the legacy Act, at least in part. I am not aware of which part specifically they rejected, but I would like to remind the ministerial team that in 2017 the then Defence Committee examined in great detail whether it would be legal to have a statute of limitation that would put an end to these prosecutions. Four professors of law, including Philippe Sands, agreed that it would be, as long as there was an investigative process, possibly embodied in a truth recovery process. When the Government bring forward whatever alternative legislation to the legacy Act they propose, will they make sure that a statute of limitation is part of it?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.

Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?

I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.

I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.

However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.

However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.

The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.