Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Reason

19:42

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 2A in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3, and do not insist on its Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of that amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2D.

2D: Because the Bill creates an effective regime for the investigation of matters of concern to service personnel and their families, Amendment 2A makes appropriate provision to protect the anonymity of individuals who raise such concerns, and the additional provision inserted by Amendments 2B and 2C is unnecessary and inappropriate.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, with permission, I will say something that I should have said at the end of the defence review debate. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who, as we know, has now left your Lordships’ House. We wish her well in the future and have valued her contributions over many years.

I also note, as I know the noble Baroness opposite and the Liberal Front Bench will too, that today is our last opportunity here to mark VJ Day, which will be on 15 August. We know that the nation will commemorate it in the appropriate way, with respect to all of that.

I am delighted that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to your Lordships’ Chamber ahead of the Summer Recess. I thank all Members of this House for their expertise and insight and the time they have generously given in critiquing this landmark Bill.

During Commons consideration of Lords amendments on 2 July, the amendments on whistleblowing tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, were put to a vote and were disagreed to. The Government’s proposed Amendment 2A was reinserted. While we have debated the wording and legal functioning of the amendments in question at length, it has become clear that both Houses agree on the importance of a robust and transparent process for service personnel to raise their concerns and blow the whistle. We want our Armed Forces and their families to have confidence and trust in the system and to feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns.

19:45

We have actively engaged and heard valuable contributions both in this Chamber and outside. In particular, I express my sincere thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, who have been incredibly generous with their time and expertise. As a result of these constructive discussions, the Government have decided to initiate a whistleblowing in defence review led by my colleague, the Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns MP.

Importantly, for clarity, I would like to read into the record the letter dated 9 July that the Minister for Armed Forces and I sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, copied to others, detailing our commitment to undertake this review. I hope the House will bear with me—it is important to have this on the record:

“As you powerfully raised in Grand Committee and in the proceeding debates, Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected to come forward with their concerns, and Defence needs to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in the Armed Forces. We could not agree more.

This Government has already initiated our Raising our Standards … workstream to direct, cohere and enable behaviours and culture work across the whole of Defence. The programme has been allocated £100 million of funding over the next 3 years. Other planned work includes, but is not limited to: a regional pilot for hubs providing support to victims of Violence Against Women and Girls, launching a Tri-Service Complaints Unit and piloting an initiative to provide independent legal advice to victims of sexual assault.

To further strengthen this programme of work we will initiate a Whistleblowing in Defence Review led by the Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns MP. This will allow us to look at whistleblowing in a broader context, rather than solely in the general service welfare sphere. Of course how the Armed Forces Commissioner fits into this landscape will be an important part of the review.

The Review will assess … Whether the current Raising a Concern policy is fit for purpose … How we communicate our policy to service personnel … Whether personnel understand the processes for raising issues and the protections they are afforded … The consistency between the application and accessibility of military and civilian whistleblowing procedures; and … Crucially, whether legislation is needed to implement any changes.

Further details of the Review will be published via a Written Ministerial Statement in due course. The review will produce initial findings by the end of this year and a final report and recommendations by Spring 2026.

Should any agreed measures require changes to legislation, we will look to do this in a suitable vehicle as soon as parliamentary time allows. Whilst it would be premature to commit to a specific Bill at this stage, you will be aware that the Armed Forces Act requires renewing via primary legislation before the end of 2026.

As we have made clear in respective debates, we want this to be a substantive, meaningful process with tangible outcomes to improve the lives of service personnel. To that end, we are keen to hear the views and perspectives of you and your parliamentary colleagues and will hold consultation sessions to facilitate this”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly responded to this letter earlier this week, stating her support for our proposed review and suggesting a number of areas it should focus on. First and foremost, the noble Baroness advocated

“providing clarity, simplicity and effectiveness for all personnel”.

I entirely agree that this should be a central focus of the review. The noble Baroness has made several other very adept suggestions. The MoD ministerial team—especially the Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns, who I agree is the perfect choice as someone who, until recently, was in the Armed Forces and understands military life—looks forward to working with her to ensure that the scope of the review is fit for purpose.

We are keen for the review to take place and for any recommendations to be implemented as soon as is practical. We will conduct scoping work over the summer and intend to publish a Written Ministerial Statement after the Summer Recess setting out the scope of that review.

I am pleased that we have reached an amicable and productive consensus with the whistleblowing in defence review. I invite the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, along with any other noble Lords who would like to attend, to meet at a later date so that I can update them on the progress of the review.

I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance that the House needs to support the Bill’s passage through to Royal Assent so we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment, supported across this House, for our brave service men and women and their families.

It has been an honour to take forward the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill through this House, and I very much look forward to the valuable contributions as we finalise the last details of this defining legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to participate in our debates on this Bill. I echo and endorse the sentiments articulated by the Minister at the start of his speech.

These Benches made clear from the outset that we supported the Bill, and an independent presence in the form of the new commissioner is an important and welcome development. It was that very independence which suggested to me that the commissioner would be well placed to look at whistleblowing complaints. Those who have any knowledge of the Armed Forces know that the very environment of discipline and command structure that produces such exemplary servicemen and servicewomen is also a very closed environment, which can make it difficult to seek help when something goes wrong.

Sadly, we know all too well that things can go wrong. That may be in the life of an individual, or there may be a more systemic wrong, but the burning question is how redress is obtained. That is why it seemed that we needed an avenue over and above the existing procedures, and why allowing the Armed Forces commissioner to investigate whistleblowing complaints was the particular granite boulder at which I have been chipping away,

I have been greatly assisted by the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who has been so supportive of my efforts, and so helpful to the House in explaining the particular virtues of whistleblowing. I was immensely encouraged when the House showed such powerful support for our efforts in amending the Bill as we suggested.

Although the Bill now returns to us with the amendment stripped out, and the granite boulder now bears a new inscription from the Government, entitled, “We are prepared to carry out a review of whistleblowing in defence”, I am very pleased at that progress. As the Minister indicated, he and his colleague in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces, wrote to me to confirm that this was the Government’s proposal. I now want to thank the Minister—these are not easy, cosmetic words from the Dispatch Box; I absolutely mean it—because the way in which the Minister and his colleague, Mr Luke Pollard, have engaged, has been immensely helpful to our efforts to try to improve the situation for our Armed Forces personnel. Above all else, I want to thank them both for listening.

I have accepted the offer in good faith, and I have agreed that the Bill should now pass so that progress can be made with this important appointment. But, before I lay down my masonry chisel, there are a few further inscriptions I wish to add to the boulder so that we all know where we are. The Minister was kind enough to reference a few of these, extracted from the letter which I wrote to him.

As I have previously argued, more than one route for making a complaint is not a weakness; anything which facilitates accessibility by the complainer is a strength. However, the specific points I wish to raise in relation to the role of the review are that it can be a stocktake of the current procedures and can assess whether these need to be simplified, and, if so, how that can be done. The review should also recognise the key distinction between simply raising a complaint and blowing the whistle on serious wrongdoing. As the Minister has kindly indicated, the review should also take place in close consultation with the Armed Forces commissioner whenever he or she is appointed.

It is very welcome that Minister Al Carns has been proposed to lead the review; it is very important to have a person of his stature conducting it. If the review is to gain the trust of service personnel, we must have someone who has the respect of the forces and experience of life in the services leading it.

I have a small number of specific questions about the review. How will the consultation take place, and what are the timescales? In particular, how will the views of service personnel be sought, and will the interim and final findings be published and laid before Parliament to enable full scrutiny of the findings? In the letter there is a reference to

“consistency between the application and accessibility of military and civilian whistleblowing procedures”.

I was not entirely clear what that meant, but I am sure the Minister will clarify in his closing remarks.

Further details of the review are to be published via a Written Ministerial Statement in due course. That review will produce initial findings by the end of the year and a final report and recommendations in spring 2026. Can the Minister say when the Written Ministerial Statement will be published, approximately, and will it contain the terms of reference for the review?

In conclusion, I look forward to the Minister’s response, I reaffirm my thanks for his constructive engagement and I hope that I can play a helpful role when the consultation process commences. Our common aim—of the Minister, myself and our colleagues across the Chamber—is to improve life for our service personnel. I support the government Motion and I support the passing of the Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief, but first I join with the Minister in stressing the importance of remembering VJ Day. We on these Benches share his view.

I congratulate both the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the team that he stands with, including Luke Pollard, who I had the privilege to meet with. I just say to both of them that the outcome that has emerged now at the end of this process is, frankly, better than anything I had ever hoped for. What we have been promised by the Minister—because of the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in raising and pushing the issue, as well as the willingness of the Government to listen—is this much broader review of whistleblowing in the defence sector, led by the Minister for Veterans and People. That is exceedingly important, because it underscores a changing cultural attitude in the whole defence sector and in the Government, which means that in the future we can look forward to much greater transparency and much more effective paths for whistle- blowing right across the piece.

Once again, I add my congratulations to those who have been expressed earlier. We also will no longer attempt in any way to impede the passage of this legislation. Its content is very positive and we supported that underlying principle. It has been a privilege to be part of this discussion and this process. I accept on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith the opportunity to meet in the future, and we will put various thoughts in writing in order to assist the process.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be so brief that they will not have enough time to put my name on the annunciator.

I welcome the agreement that has been reached and I think that this is a good example of the House improving what is an important Bill, which I hope will succeed in every respect. I pay tribute to all noble Lords, because I have been involved in that sense with the Bill since the beginning—I have an interest, which I have declared previously. It has been a very useful, good example of the House in action, and I particularly congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who has behaved in an exemplary way throughout the entire process. I am very pleased to see that the result that we have agreed will pass through and that the whistleblowing defence review will take place.

I have failed: they have put my name on the annunciator.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in welcoming not only the review into whistleblowing but the movement on this Bill, because it is an important one.

I just want to ask a few questions about the whistleblowing review. I do not want to be cynical, but we know that, in good old “Yes Minister” parleys, if you want to kick something into the long grass, you set up a review. So it is going to be important that, once the review is published, the terms of reference are correct and there is an indication of a commitment of the department to implementing the review—I think the Minister suggested the Armed Forces Act coming up, which would be a good way of doing it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, this is going to be a major issue for defence. Rightly, defence needs to be secret at times, and it is also important that the chain of command is in place. But I see this not as a threat to defence but as an opportunity for defence, because some of the best companies and others that have adopted open access and whistleblowing methods have actually added to their capabilities by learning the lessons.

If we are going to do this, the terms of reference will be very important. Trying to get the cultural change to which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred is going to be important. I do not think the problem is necessarily in the Armed Forces. Part of it is going to be within the MoD itself, and I think we have seen that in the fiasco of the last few weeks over the Afghan data leak. From my experience of being a Minister there, I know the stock thing is to protect the organisation. We need to try to turn this on its head a bit and say, “Look, if we do this properly, we can have a situation whereby if someone comes forward with a whistleblowing issue, don’t see it as necessarily an attack straightaway on the department or the institution. It should be seen as an opportunity to learn from that”. The important thing in any whistleblowing change is that there has also to be a commitment to implement what is found, because so often, these things happen and then nothing changes. There will be a huge cultural issue within the MoD. That would not just be welcomed by the general public and the Armed Forces but lead to efficiencies and learning lessons. It should not be seen as a threat or “Somehow, we have to have a knee-jerk reaction, and the important thing is to protect the department at all costs”.

20:00

It is also important to involve both the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee in the review, because there is a wealth of experience on both of them, and their feeding into this process would help. If we are not careful, the Government will have to be forced to do this, because there is a major inquiry going on at the moment under Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. Even if you read just what is in the public domain there, it is clear that something went wrong. If people knew things, they did not have a method of being able to articulate them within the organisation to get change or the outcome which was required.

Finally, the Bill is a major step forward, but, throughout its passage, having been a veteran of every Armed Forces Bill for the last 20 years in the other place, I have been reminded that this is yet another attempt to get it right. That is the challenge. We have to ensure that this works, because if we do not, people will become very cynical. It is important that we not only select the right Armed Forces commissioner but that they are given the space and support to get on with their job if we are to embed what I think is really at issue here: a cultural change within defence.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this short debate at the end of our discussions on the Bill. I want to comment briefly on a couple of the points that were made. On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the Written Ministerial Statement, we expect to do that in the autumn, when the terms of reference are concluded. We intend to consult on all that. Some of the detail that she asked for will be in the process of setting up the review, so we will need to come back to her and others on that.

We will seek the views of service personnel in a variety of ways, but it will be essential that we do so no matter where in the world they are. It will be important to seek them out, but, above all, to give them the confidence to come forward and be part of that. We will closely communicate with service personnel. There is a new defence voices panel, as well as existing Armed Forces networks, so we need to use some of the new procedures that have been set up. One reason that Minister Carns is good is his recent ex-military background. I think that gives him an advantage in seeking some of those views and giving people the confidence to come forward.

The findings of the review will be published and laid before Parliament—the noble Baroness asked about that. We intend to do that as quickly as possible. Therefore, any interim findings may not be made with the full picture of whistleblowing, but when we reach the conclusions and the review is finalised, yes, of course we will publish it and it will be laid before Parliament.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments and support. Her contributions have been very worth while and helpful to all of us. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Stansgate got his name on the annunciator, but he has been here a lot through our different debates, and I have been very pleased about the support that he has given to us as well. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish. He is absolutely right about the need for cultural change and that being crucial within the Ministry of Defence. It is very important. We made the commitment—in fact, I think, in response to one of his amendments in Committee—that we will of course involve both the Commons Defence Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee of your Lordships’ House. My noble friend Lord Beamish was also right to say that this should be seen as an opportunity and not as a threat.

As I said, we will need to firm up some of the details, and we will do that in discussion and negotiation with others across the House. I am pleased that the Bill has now come to the point where we are in a position to pass it. It is a significant reform and will make a real difference. I just say in closing that we do not intend to use this review, as Governments sometimes do with reviews, to kick something into the long grass and as a way of securing support. This is a very real review. It is too important an issue for that to happen. I am sure that many in your Lordships’ House would hold me to account were that to be the case. With that, I commend the Motion.

Motion A agreed.