Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Goldie

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

[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.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Goldie

Committee: 11th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Baroness is quite right: there may be an overlap of issues where there is the desire to legislate positively about something as well as taking into account something that is no longer relevant. What I am saying is that where there is a patent misfit because something no longer applies to UK law, I think it is sensible in those circumstances to let the Minister try to ensure that there is no confusion, in that it does not make its way into what is in public view as representative of the body of law.

[Baroness Kramer]

Surely there is nothing wrong with a Minister proposing that something is not relevant and appropriate, but to make the final decision on that with no capacity for challenge is completely out of order. That is not a responsibility that should be placed on any member of the Executive.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Goldie

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I shall say only a few words because of the lateness of the hour, but I support this amendment. The Government have continually used the argument that they cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impact on the UK economy, jobs and other opportunities either because they do not know the full clarity of what the end agreement will look like or because any disclosure might compromise their negotiating position. I have always found that a little strange. Having negotiated trade agreements on our behalf for 40 years, there is, in fact, more expertise about the impact of these arrangements on the other side of the channel than there is on this side, so we are really not fooling anybody in any of the discussions that we have.

Setting that aside, at the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, describes, neither of those arguments stands any more. We will have completed our negotiations and will know the details of what we have negotiated. Do the Government not agree that transparency is both possible and crucial at that moment and, therefore, that the analysis that the noble Lord just described is vital and owed to Parliament and the British people?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his absence for this amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving it and speaking to it. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s remit is clearly defined in legislation, under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, as being,

“to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances”.

In doing so, the OBR must produce at least two forecasts per financial year, which must include the impact of government policy where it can be quantified with reasonable accuracy.

The Government expect the OBR to include the impact of the withdrawal agreement alongside its forecast of the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook as soon as sufficient information is available. That would contribute to the transparency which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is looking for. But the Government cannot dictate when that might be. This is the important distinction. It is therefore not appropriate to request the OBR to produce analysis specifically for a legislative debate, as this will draw the OBR into political debate, which could undermine its reputation as an independent and objective institution.

Brexit: Financial Services Sector

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Goldie

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

My noble friend articulates more succinctly and cogently than I can exactly what the sensitivity of these negotiations is. These sensitivities are well understood on the part of the Government; I just wish they were better understood elsewhere.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I spent the morning working with a large number of people in the financial services sector. Does the Minister understand how outraged many people are who have held back on their contingency planning in the expectation that there was to be clarification through this paper, and the number of people who practically pinioned me to the wall to pass her the message that this confirms to them that the Government are so internally riven that they do not have a negotiating position on this key area, and they are on their own?

[Baroness Goldie]

The noble Baroness seems to imply that the Government are operating in some kind of vacuum. They are not for two reasons, as was made very clear in December when we moved on to phase 2, the critical component of the negotiations when the very issues that so concern the noble Baroness will be the subject of discussion. It is not as though there is no engagement with the financial services industry; there is very close engagement. As my noble friend Lord Lamont made clear, this is a sensitive time in the discussions. It would be completely inappropriate to show hands and declare positions. The financial services industry is aware of what the Government seek in terms of their objectives. We take comfort from the position of London in the global financial world. The Z/Yen consultancy declared in September that London is the leading financial centre, ahead of New York which is second, Hong Kong, third and Singapore, fourth. Yes, we know what people in the financial services industry feel. Yes, we are cognisant of that and, yes, we are doing everything we can to robustly represent the best interests of the financial services industry.