Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Luke Akehurst and Luke Pollard

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that.

Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu.

Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower.

Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include.

More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process.

Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luke Akehurst and Luke Pollard

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Let me squash the hon. Gentleman’s last comment, which is wrong: we do not have to inform Mauritius before taking any military action. Under the treaty, we have to provide notification after the event. I have explained this 13 times in written answers to Members on the Conservative Front Bench, but I am afraid that they still do not get it. That underlines why they could not do a deal after 11 rounds of negotiation, whereas this Government did it after two rounds, securing the future of that vital base for UK and US operations.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that our closest allies—the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and even India—have all welcomed this deal, precisely because they recognise the irreplaceable role of Diego Garcia in global security? What does the Minister think is going on with the Opposition, who think they know more about global security than the security services, the White House and the Pentagon?

[Luke Pollard]

This is important, because the future of Diego Garcia is absolutely vital. Having accepted the principle that sovereignty could be secured only by a negotiated settlement—that was the decision taken by the last Government—it is right that we secured a deal, and right that we protect the base for operations for more than 100 years. The deal is good value for the UK taxpayer, because it secures the most valuable piece of military real estate on the planet, and keeps it under UK control for the next century and beyond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Luke Akehurst and Luke Pollard

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I am familiar with the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who has raised similar concerns. If the right hon. Lady writes to me about that, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it further.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the strength of the response on protecting our undersea infrastructure. The Defence Secretary has been clear that growing Russian aggression will not be tolerated here or in Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that homeland security will be a key focus of the strategic defence review?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We live in more difficult and uncertain times, with increasing risks to UK homeland security. That is an evolution from some of the strategic assessments in previous reviews. It is for that reason that the strategic defence review is looking not only at how we support our NATO allies, with a NATO-first approach, but at how we invest in capabilities to ensure that we are looking after the UK homeland—and, Mr Speaker, the UK homeland includes our overseas territories.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Debate between Luke Akehurst and Luke Pollard

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

Lord Robertson is conducting the externally led strategic defence review based on the terms of reference that were agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson will publish it in the spring. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to it as much as I am.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Under the last Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to get to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system that we inherited in defence?

[Luke Pollard]

It is certainly true that we inherited a broken defence procurement system; I think broken was the word that the shadow defence procurement Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), used when he was on the Defence Committee. It must make for awkward team meetings, given that the man responsible for the broken procurement system, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is sitting in those meetings as his boss. We have set out clearly that, as part of our defence reform work, we will create a new national armaments director. The new defence industrial strategy will be published in due course, which will set out how we will spend more with British companies, supporting not just the primes but small and medium-sized enterprises in all parts of the United Kingdom.