PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) - 12 December 2024 (Commons/Public Bill Committees)

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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?

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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.

I understand the hon. Lady’s argument, but—

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.

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.

Is this another brief intervention?

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—

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.

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?

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. On that basis, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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.

Clause 4 inserts proposed new sections 340IA, 340IB and 340LA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. Taken in order, these new sections enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter, to have powers of entry to certain Ministry of Defence sites, and to report and make recommendations in relation to their general service welfare investigations.

The commissioner will be in a unique position to take a holistic view of the range of issues faced by service personnel and their families. Their position as an independent champion for our armed forces will allow them to bring to the attention of Parliament and therefore the public a range of issues faced by service personnel—whether that is accommodation or retention, pensions, as we have just debated, or childcare—and provide holistic recommendations. That can only be positive for service people and will provide greater transparency and accountability in defence.

Proposed new section 340IA, when inserted into the 2006 Act, will enable the commissioner to investigate a general service welfare matter. The intent of this section is to ensure a scope broad enough to capture issues that may have been brought to the commissioner’s attention through oversight of the service complaints system, but also issues that can be raised directly by service personnel and their families, provided it relates in some way to the serviceperson in question and their service.

Subsection (2) states that a general service welfare matter is any matter which might, in the opinion of the commissioner, materially affect the welfare of service personnel and their families where those issues have arisen as a result of the relevant service person’s ongoing service. Members of the Committee will be able to see that that gives a very broad interpretation power to the commissioner to be able to make a decision about what falls as a general service welfare matter. As such, specifying particular issues in the Bill is unnecessary. “Materially affect” is not defined, but its inclusion ensures that a matter must be sufficiently serious to warrant an investigation.

Subsection (3) requires the commissioner to consider a request from any person subject to service law, or a relevant family member, to carry out an investigation into a general service welfare matter. However, that does not preclude the commissioner from considering a request made by someone else if they wished to, provided it falls into the scope of a general service welfare matter.

Subsections (4) and (5) exclude certain matters that cannot be investigated under this section, but still allow the commissioner to investigate general service welfare issues that may have been brought to their attention in connection with a particular service complaint, service inquiry, criminal investigation or proceedings, or public inquiry. Additionally, any “specified” matter can be excluded from investigation by the commissioner. These matters can be set out in secondary legislation, but must relate to national security or the safety of any person.

Subsection (7) places a requirement on the Secretary of State to reasonably co-operate with, and give reasonable assistance to, the commissioner in relation to an investigation under this section. I touched on that earlier in relation to the concerns of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Secretary of State must also consider any findings or recommendations made by the commissioner in connection with an investigation under this section.

Subsection (8) sets out the definitions for this section, including that the definition of a “relevant family member” is to be set out in regulations. As I mentioned in response to questions from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would expect that to be set out during the course of the passage of the Bill. It would then go through the usual scrutiny process should Members wish to interrogate the provision further.

Proposed new section 340IB, “Power of Entry to Service Premises” will, when inserted into the Act, confer powers on the commissioner enabling them to enter certain Ministry of Defence sites in the United Kingdom. Subsection (1) specifies that the power of entry includes certain actions, including the ability to observe activities at those sites and to inspect and take copies of documentation. I direct the attention of the Committee to the important power the commissioner has of requesting information from the Secretary of State, so their ability to interrogate, scrutinise and understand general service welfare matters is not restricted only to what they can observe on a visit; they also have the information they can request from the MOD. It is worth restating at this point that the commissioner’s investigations must relate to a general service welfare matter. They cannot use the power of entry to access sites or information purely on a whim, or for their own interest.

Subsection (2) provides that copies of electronic documentation provided to the commissioner must be legible and in a form that can be taken away. Subsections (3) and (4) require that, prior to relying on their powers of entry, the commissioner should provide such notice to the Secretary of State as they consider appropriate. Where they consider that to provide such notice would defeat the object of their powers of entry, they may provide no notice at all, but only where their visit relates to services premises within the UK. For service premises outside the UK, the commissioner must give notice of the proposal to visit within such a period as the commissioner considers appropriate.

Subsection (5) permits the commissioner to be accompanied on visits by a person or bring anything of their choosing if required for the purposes of their investigation and obliges the commissioner to provide evidence of their identity should that be requested. Subsection (6) enables the Secretary of State to prevent or restrict the commissioner’s powers of entry where they consider it necessary in the interests of national security or for the safety of any person. I believe the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a concern on Second Reading in relation to frontline operations. In that situation, just to reassure him, the Secretary of State would have the ability to prevent a visit to a frontline position. That would probably relate to the safety of any person, notwithstanding national security implications. To reassure him, that is something that would be taken into account when any overseas visits were made.

Subsection (7) sets out the instances when the commissioner may not exercise their powers. That includes where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to assume an item is subject to legal privilege. In addition, subsection (7) sets out that the commissioner cannot require an individual to do anything they could not be compelled to do by a civil court. Subsection (8) provides relevant definitions.

Proposed new section 340LA, on reports and recommendations into general service welfare investigations, will, when inserted into the Armed Forces Act, enable the commissioner to prepare reports setting out their findings and recommendations resulting from one of their general service welfare investigations. Subsection (2)(b) sets out that where a report is prepared, the commissioner must give it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable. Subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State must, on receiving the report, lay it before Parliament promptly, and in any event within 30 sitting days. Subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to exclude from any report any material where they consider that its publication would be against the interests of national security might jeopardise someone’s safety. Taken together, the powers and reports will provide Parliament with a much greater level of scrutiny of the issues facing our service personnel and their families.

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.

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.

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.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

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.

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.

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.

Members of the Committee will be aware that line 35 on page 2 defines a general welfare matter using its own terms; it says that a general welfare matter is a matter to do with welfare. Thinking back to when we all did English GCSE—or O-level, in the case of some of us—we know that using terms to define themselves is a bit self-defeating, because they do not really define anything. I assume that is deliberate, and maybe the Minister will tell us so. The provision is incredibly broadly drawn and gives the commissioner very free reign as to what they consider a welfare matter to be, with one or two exclusions that the Minister mentioned earlier.

I think that is important, because I keep being told, and I have read in the explanatory notes, that this is all inspired by the German model. When I ask what is so great about the German model, I read that it is because German members of the armed forces are really happy with it. On Tuesday, General Gregory said that to do their job effectively, the armed forces commissioner needs a clear and deep view of defence outputs. People being happy with a part of the bureaucracy is not a defence output. The only one that trumps everything else is the ability to deliver legal, lethal force. In summary, the armed forces need to be able to kill lots of people.

Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—it is almost as if he read my speech. I was going to stay on my German theme and say that one person who interpreted that general definition of welfare was another German: General Erwin Rommel. He said that the best form of welfare is better training, because more training means fewer widows.

Although the Bill and the Minister attempt to draw the line between operations abroad and welfare at home, those things rub up against each other. For example, the Ministry of Defence has targets for nights out of bed. How much time can personnel be expected to spend away without their service becoming too detrimental to their family life? Equally, it has these things that sound wonderful—I thought it was to do with hairspray—called harmony guidelines. In fact, they are to do with how long the armed forces can send people away for without a specified dwell time in between for them to recuperate.

From a welfare point of view, it is perfectly possible that the Armed Forces Commissioner could focus solely on whether a commanding officer, a unit, a brigade, a ship’s captain or whatever was meeting the nights out of bed guidelines or the harmony guidelines. But the captain of that ship or the commanding officer of that unit might well think, as Rommel did, that more training was better in the long run for the welfare of their personnel. I would be grateful for a response from the Minister on that point.

My other concern is much more strategic: by having an Armed Forces Commissioner with these extended powers and the ability to report to Parliament, we put a spotlight on one aspect of militarism, potentially to the detriment of other aspects of it, such as the defence output of killing lots of people. That is important because the Minister for the Armed Forces, as well as the defence board, will be making strategic balance-of-investment decisions between things such as buying a lot more jets and getting damp-proof courses for quarters.

Look at the figures in the House of Commons Defence Committee report into service accommodation, which was published yesterday. If the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence were minded to rectify the parlous state of some parts of the defence estate, that alone would use up every single penny of the, I think, £2.6 billion extra that the Chancellor has found to increase the defence budget.

I alert the Minister to the fact that over time, the instigation of this parliamentary-level scrutiny of one aspect of the make-up of defence may well strategically shift us away from the defence output of lethality. It is a reductio argument, but we could have a fully manned armed forces with everyone giving 100% scores on the continuous attitude survey, great pensions and fantastic pay, but they cannot win a war. Clearly, that is not where we want to get to. We have to put in place measures and judgments that mean that the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the instigation and extension of their powers, does not undermine the military chain of command or the capacity to fight.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important part of the Bill. If I may, I will respond quickly to a number of the points that have been raised. The shadow Minister mentioned the continuity of education allowance. It is important, and that is why the Secretary of State has uplifted it to include the VAT, where it has been charged additionally by a school—not all schools will charge the additional VAT, as that is a decision for them—and it will continue to be paid at 90% of the fees. We have addressed the concern raised with us by service personnel to continue that 90% level for CEA.

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.

I will check with my husband whether I am allowed a cheeky coffee date with the right hon. Gentleman.

He has nothing to fear!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

I turn first to clause 5 and schedule 2. Clause 5 sets out that the consequential amendments are contained in schedule 2. The schedule amends existing legislation to ensure that the abolition of the role of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the creation of the role of Armed Forces Commissioner are reflected across a range of provisions on the statute book. Members will be able to see those edits in the Bill, and most of them simply replace references to the Service Complaints Ombudsman with references to the Armed Forces Commissioner, with no practical policy change.

The changes to part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which covers service complaints, also serve to ensure that there is a clear distinction between references to existing investigations relating to service complaints and references to the new general service welfare investigations, which we spoke about earlier.

I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 17 of schedule 2, which amends the powers currently afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman to require information, documents and evidence necessary to conduct their service complaints investigations. The change ensures that the powers to request information also apply to the commissioner’s new powers of investigation into general service welfare matters. It is an important change, allowing the commissioner fully to investigate those issues. Similarly, the change in paragraph 18 ensures that, in respect of their new functions, the commissioner has the same enforcement mechanisms as are currently afforded to the ombudsman.

Clause 6 sets out the extent of the Bill. It does that through subsections (1) and (2), extending the Bill to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and to Scotland, except for the concept of the commissioner being a corporation sole, because Scots law does not have the concept of a corporation sole. Subsections (4) and (5) include a permissive extent provision, which enables the Bill’s provisions to be extended by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the British overseas territories—except Gibraltar—and the Isle of Man. The Bill does not contain a permissive extent provision for Gibraltar, as Gibraltar legislates for itself on the Armed Forces Act via the Armed Forces (Gibraltar) Act 2018, so it is not appropriate to include it in the Bill.

I have spoken to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who has been very welcoming of the Bill and has confirmed that he is content to continue to legislate in the Gibraltar Parliament on armed forces matters. In this case, UK and Gibraltar officials will now take steps to mirror the UK legislation in Gibraltar law, thereby continuing to demonstrate the close co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Gibraltar on all defence matters. I thank the Chief Minister and his Government for that co-operation.

It is important that clause 6 be agreed to, as it sets out the legal jurisdictions in which the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill will have legal effect. Clause 7 outlines the provisions that will come into force once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Except for the extent, commencement and short title clauses, the main provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to make in regulations transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any of the Bill’s provisions.

Would it be possible for the Minister to provide clarification on how sensitive information will be handled? I imagine that, with these extra powers, the new commissioner will be able to take both physical and digital sensitive information. Does that indicate that there will be a need for a new secure physical facility to allow those documents to be stored and a new digital network to allow those digital files to be handled?

I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly using his previous experience in the military to carefully scrutinise how this provision will work in practice. I am very happy to write to him about that. It would be set out in the implementation work that the Ministry of Defence is doing at the moment. However, we have a foundation in the work of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, which already handles much of that sensitive information, especially in cases relating to personnel and their issues, and I imagine that that work will carry on. The Armed Forces Commissioner is also subject to the Official Secrets Act, the Data Protection Act 2018 and a whole array of other legislation that seeks to ensure the proper security of information. I am happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman on the detail of all that.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I apologise for not being here at the start of the sitting; I was in the Etherton review debate in the main Chamber, contributing on important LGBTQ+ issues. I see that my amendments fell in my absence, and I hope that nothing detrimental was said about my absence, considering the importance of the Etherton review for LGBT veterans.

Moving on to recruits, it is essential that the commissioner can also investigate issues facing recruits, who sometimes have to stay on bases overnight. Upon reading the Bill, I saw that there is an absence of consideration of recruits, which is why I tabled the new clause—to make sure that they are also considered in the Bill.

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.

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.

I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for her new clause and her concerns about potential recruits. First, it is absolutely vital that we fix the recruitment crisis that the armed forces have experienced for much of the last decade. As the shadow Minister confirmed, our armed forces lose more people than they gain, which is an unsustainable position. That is a dire inheritance, which fundamentally shines a light on the failure of the last Government to give our armed forces not only the people they need, but the systems and the support that people need to join and to stay in service.

I recognise that many of the people applying to join the armed forces wait for far too long, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It is for precisely that reason that the Secretary for State gave a commitment in his Labour conference speech on the “10-30 provision”: within 10 days from application we will give a provisional offer to join the armed forces, and 30 days from the point of application we will give a provisional start date. That is being rolled out at the moment. It will take some time to deliver across all three services, but that is an important step towards providing more clarity. When people understand how long the recruitment process will take, they are better able to make decisions about travel, work or their own life in that period.

If that strategy does not work or if it is seen to be failing, will the Minister make it clear whether that is something that the Armed Forces Commissioner could look at? As the Bill is currently drafted, they would not be allowed to do that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

You state—

“He”!

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?

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.

I thank the shadow Minister for his views on engagement with veterans commissioners. To reiterate, the purpose of the Armed Forces Commissioner is to shine a spotlight on and be an independent advocate for serving personnel and their families.

Notwithstanding the really important contribution that veterans make to our communities—and our armed forces community—we are seeking to address the particular deficit of scrutiny on the issues affecting armed forces personnel because they are not allowed to take up the same channels to raise a concern as civilians are. There are preventions on them speaking to Members of Parliament and the media in the way that a civilian can. That is why we are addressing those particular concerns with an Armed Forces Commissioner, who will look at those personnel and their issues alone.

In setting out clearly where we are, however, I turn to some of the issues mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. First, I put on the record the importance of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell in the main Chamber just now—she was addressing the Etherton report. All the members of the Committee who were not in the Chamber—because we were here—will have missed the announcement made by the Secretary of State: we have adopted 42 of the 49 recommendations in the Etherton report and implemented them; we will have implemented all 49 by the end of the next year; and, for the shame brought on our society by how LGBT veterans were treated, we are increasing the amount payable to them recommended in the report by 50%, from a fund of £50 million to one of £75 million.

That means a standard payment of £50,000 for those LGBT veterans who were dismissed or discharged because of their sexuality or gender identity, with a further £20,000 for an LGBT impact payment, which depends on their experience of the ban. From the harrowing testimony of many LGBT veterans, we know how they were treated because of their sexuality or gender identity—disgusting medical interventions and imprisonment. Furthermore, we will provide additional support for restoration of rank, if lowering of rank was involved at the point of dismissal, and for correcting their service record. Today’s announcement was a substantial one, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I thank Lord Etherton for his work and the Minister for Veterans and People for championing it so clearly from day one in office.

In responding to the points made by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I do not wish to belittle or disregard any of the veterans’ concerns he has mentioned or those in the wider community. The focus on armed forces personnel is really important. As such, his questions sit outside the broad brush of where we are for this Bill, but I entirely understand his passion. I am happy to take those questions back to the Department and ask the Minister for Veterans and People to write to him with further details, which is probably the appropriate way of getting the ideas that he requires.

I gently point out that there is no shadow veterans Minister in the shadow Cabinet, a choice that could have been taken by the leader of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. I would like to—I think—welcome him as the shadow veterans Minister, because he shadows nearly every other Commons Minister, which is quite a lot of work for him. When we were in opposition, having a dedicated shadow veterans Minister—one was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, who is now sitting behind me as the Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary—was important, because it gives due regard to the experience of the veterans. I hope that his party will be able to follow Labour when we were in opposition, and appoint a dedicated shadow veterans Minister, in whatever form that may be, in due course.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford that this matter is important. The Defence Secretary sits around the Cabinet table representing veterans, and he does so very well. We have seen from the Etherton announcement today that that voice around the Cabinet table delivers real benefits for veterans in increasing the support available to them, but we need to ensure that this Bill is tightly drawn around the general service welfare needs of our armed forces and the people who serve in them.

Having said that, let me show a little bit of parliamentary leg to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, in terms of where the Haythornthwaite review of armed forces incentivisation reforms could come into play. It is another policy of this Government to create a new area where, instead of people having the binary status of being in the armed forces or not—and we recognise that many veterans face a real cliff edge in terms of their lived experience and career trajectories when they leave service—they can rejoin the armed forces, removing some of the current barriers that prevent them from being able to do so.

That is an important part of being able to address the skills need, but we also recognise that in the modern world people may have careers, in uniform and out of uniform, that could be of benefit to defence. There could be an area of service where people serve, leave, serve outside in a civilian role, rejoin and do so likewise. In such circumstances, the general service welfare matters of the Armed Forces Commissioner would pertain to their experience subject to service law, but the Armed Forces Commissioner may wish to look at the rejoining aspect in due course, as part of a general service welfare matter for them as re-joiners.

There is something of a twilight zone. We heard from Colonel Darren Doherty on Tuesday that he had done his 38 years’ service and was now entering a period of regular reserved service, which, as the Minister knows, is a residual requirement to answer the call to arms. I have checked with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and I believe her period has finished. I think mine is finished, but I am always waiting for that knock at the door. I am pretty sure my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East is still well within his window.

When examining the secondary legislation, it might be worth examining this issue. If that cohort of people felt that they wanted to report an issue, would they report it to the Armed Forces Commissioner because they were still liable to call-up, or would they report it to the veterans commissioner whenever that role is introduced? I believe that those on the regular reserve list are not subject to military law, but I think they are subject to criminal law in terms of their requirement. I am genuinely not clear on the matter, and if I am not clear, then each commissioner would not necessarily be clear as to which one is responsible.

I am grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman is inviting me to use the call-up powers that I have as Minister for the Armed Forces to pick and choose, which is certainly not how I would reflect those powers in a day-to-day operation. However, he raises a really important point, which speaks to the broader challenge of where we are with reserve forces.

At the moment, there are a number of different categories of reserve forces to which a large chunk of legislation pertains, some of which may be relevant and some of which may need updating in order to deliver it. The Minister for Veterans and People is undertaking a piece of work at the moment to look at how we can do so. That is part of the work to renew the contract between the nation and those who have served, but also to make sure that we have available to us as a nation not only a reserve force made up of those people who are subject to service law, but a strategic reserve made up of those people who have left but who—as the hon. Member for Spelthorne says—still await a knock at the door if required. That piece of work is ongoing.

The legislation in relation to the Armed Forces Commissioner clearly deals with people affected by service law, not necessarily by a residual commitment. However, it would be up to the Armed Forces Commissioner, depending on the issue of the thematic investigation, whether he or she wished to invite the opinions of people who may sit outside of uniformed service, as well as of families. That would be a matter for the Armed Forces Commissioner, and the hon. Gentleman will have spotted that there is a clause in the Bill allowing the commissioner to invite views from whoever they see fit in the exercise of their duties. That may be something that the House of Commons Defence Committee wishes to interrogate further, or something that we should pick up once the commissioner’s office has been stood up.

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.

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.

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.

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.