Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 1 and 6. While I have enormous sympathy with their intent, when I heard the noble Baroness say that this would expand the role of the commissioner a little bit, I am afraid I thought it would do anything but. If we consider that there are some 160,000 to 170,000 members of the Armed Forces, including reserves, who would be able to have access to the commissioner because they are subject to service law, and that there are over 100,000 applications—the word used by the noble Baroness—to join the British Army alone, never mind the two other services, we would in effect be doubling the aperture for those who could potentially submit a complaint to the commissioner. The commissioner’s office is already under enormous strain. It is a tiny office because much of the service complaints system is done through the single services. The Bill already suggests that the budget for the commissioner is going to have to double. I simply do not understand how the commissioner could cope, but I am sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve.

Equally, Amendment 6 is slightly confused, because in Committee we established that attestation is the point at which someone joins the Armed Forces, and that is when they become subject to service law. Yet, where the noble Baroness seeks to extend it to those engaged in training as well, those people by definition have been attested and, if they are conducting military training, have already joined the military and so will be subject to service law.

While I am on my feet, I want to address a general point with the Minister in my capacity—and I declare my interest—as director of Army Reserve, on the test for whether someone is subject to service law. As a humble reservist, I am subject to service law, but only when I am claiming a reserve service day or wearing a uniform. For much of my time, like other reservists, I am not subject to service law. The problem is that, just because I and my fellow reservists are not subject to service law, that does not mean that the military is not doing things in my name which may warrant a service complaint. For example, I could be subject to a promotions board which I wish to contest; or I could be on a leave of absence, which then could be misinterpreted as a long-term absence and I could be dismissed from the Army Reserve. Indeed, I could be posted while I am on a leave of absence but not technically subject to service law at that point. If we look at this from a purely technical point of view and if we look at the Bill precisely, for all those actions happening while I am not subject to service law, I would not be able to submit a service complaint. I am not suggesting that it needs an amendment, but it would be useful if the Minister could reassure your Lordships’ House that the intent is that, when it comes to the reserves, they will be able to submit a complaint to the commissioner whether or not they are technically subject to service law at that moment.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by reaffirming our support for the Bill and the creation of the Armed Forces commissioner. There are noble aims contained within its pages, and we will always welcome efforts to improve the lives of our service personnel.

When they introduced this Bill, the Government were clear that they intended the Bill to focus on serving members of the Armed Forces. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, would give access to the commissioner to a recruit from the moment they attended an assessment centre until the moment they were attested, after which they become subject to service law and will have access to the commissioner anyway.

I am highly sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments. The noble Baroness makes an excellent point: there are ongoing concerns about the recruitment process generally, and there are well-known welfare issues facing recruits. In fact, I believe that the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Tony Radakin, said on Monday that the Armed Forces are shrinking by around 300 personnel per month and that it would take up to three years to reverse that decline, especially given the Government’s proposed coalition of the willing and the recent reports that European nations would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground to protect Ukraine should that become necessary at some point. Against that backdrop, it seems right that action is taken to improve the recruitment process. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that this must be a priority. Given the challenges the Ministry of Defence is facing, will the Minister comment on further action that the Government are taking to drive improvements in recruitment?

Finally, I wish to make a brief point about the potential expansion of those who will have access to the commissioner. As I said, and as we said in Committee, we have sympathy with proposals to include recruits and veterans, but we also accept that the commissioner must not be overburdened by having to deal with an ever-growing number of people, which may limit the effectiveness of the commissioner—which would be regrettable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Earl of Minto and Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I sense that we are in danger of confusing the recruitment process and recruits. The recruitment process is the process through which you apply to join the Armed Forces. That ends at the point of attestation, when you join the Armed Forces. You then become a recruit in training. It is unfortunate that the two words are similar; we run the risk of not understanding that the point at which service law applies is attestation.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, although I appreciate the intent of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we believe that this Bill should retain clarity and focus.

It is important that the commissioner is responsible for those who are subject to service law. That is the language used in the Bill and the term defined by Section 367 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. As per that that section, those who are subject to service law include every member of the regular forces at all times; every member of the Reserve Forces while they are undertaking any training or duties relating to their reserve duties, are on permanent service on call-out, are in home defence service on call-out or are serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.

As per chapter 18, Terms and Conditions of Enlistment and Service, recruits become subject to service law once they have sworn the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King. I swore mine 53 years ago; that is a slightly awful thing to say. They would, therefore, already have access to the commissioner. The issue arises when we try to include all those going through the recruitment process, as we have just discussed. They are still civilians, and many may not complete the process of joining up. Therefore, they would not be likely to experience general service welfare issues in the same way that fully attested service personnel may do.

In Committee in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces pointed out that there can be up to 150,000 individuals going through the recruitment process at any one time. If the commissioner’s remit were to be expanded in this manner, their case load would, in essence, double. This seems like rather an onerous imposition that could hinder the commissioner’s ability to serve service personnel as the Government intend.

On Amendment 10—I very much thank the Minister for the draft regulations—the only thing I would like to say is that I believe that there is already a precedent definition in legislation. The Armed Forces (Covenant) Regulations 2022 define relevant family members for the purposes of Section 343B of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Government already have a list that defines family members, and it is fairly comprehensive. This begs the question: what differences will there be between that definition and this new definition? Also, since we have just received this latest definition, I ask the Minister: could we perhaps consider it and revert at a later stage?