Graeme Downie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for letting me interrupt his excellent speech, which is loaded with fantastic puns that I would be very proud of. What discussions has he had with industry on making sure that we have the correct skills pipeline, so that we have enough installers and other people required to ensure that solar panels are installed efficiently and effectively, and to maximise the economic benefit to this country?

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The UK submarine fleet has a long and distinguished record, always at the heart of this nation’s deterrence and defence policy. It began in 1900 when the Royal Navy ordered its first five submarines—the Holland class. In 1901, six officers were recruited for the submarine service under the leadership of Reginald Bacon, the inspecting captain of submarines. Since the early days of the submarine service, Scotland has been at its heart. In 1909, Dundee became home to the 7th Submarine Flotilla. By 1914, the submarine service consisted of 168 officers, 1,250 ratings and 62 submarines, and the fleet was moved to Rosyth in my constituency. Without offending any hon. Members from the great city of Dundee, Rosyth was obviously a much better choice, and it retains a strong role in the submarine story to this day. The role of the submarine service in world war one should never be forgotten, with five of the 14 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Royal Navy during the conflict being awarded to submariners. Although the focus of naval warfare in world war two is often thought to be the battle of Atlantic, I was fascinated to learn from the excellent podcast “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” with Al Murray and James Holland of the vital role of British submarines in the Mediterranean. For example, HMS Upholder sank around 119,000 tons of enemy shipping. It was commanded for its entire life by Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, one of the most successful submarine commanders of the conflict, who received the Victoria Cross for attacking a well-defended convoy in May 1941. The cold war saw the submarine fleet play a key part in deterrence and intelligence-gathering capability. HMS Swiftsure, a ship I will come back to later, became famous for her mission to acquire the acoustic signature of the Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, with her periscope raised just 10 feet underneath the carrier’s hull. In the Falklands, HMS Conqueror became the first and, to this day, only British nuclear-powered submarine to engage an enemy ship with torpedoes. After the attacks on the US on 11 September, HMS Trafalgar and HMS Triumph played a vital role in hitting al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. Throughout, submarines have had extensive capability and roles assisting UK special forces in their vital missions. Today, the Royal Navy operates a fleet of nine submarines, with a little over 1,100 submariners. Four are ballistic missile submarines of the Vanguard class that comprise the UK’s submarine-based independent nuclear deterrent, along with five nuclear-powered Astute class with the capability of launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at land-based targets and Spearfish torpedoes at maritime targets. The submarine fleet is spread across the UK. Faslane in Scotland is now the home base for the fleet; Devonport undertakes major refit, maintenance and decommissioning; and Barrow-in-Furness is the manufacturing location of both Astute and the next Dreadnought class of submarines. At Rosyth, Babcock is undertaking work on the submarine dismantling programme—more on that later, as well—and is also a manufacturer of missile tubes for the Royal Navy and the US navy. QinetiQ, also in my constituency, houses world-class scientists, engineers and technicians, who support our men and women on the frontline by ensuring that Royal Navy ships and submarines remain at the cutting age of technology. As I have outlined, the role of submarines in history has been varied. Indeed, the flexibility of the fleet is one of its strengths. The role of submarines is necessarily secret, but it is clear that the need for subsurface protection is both critical and increasing. In 2022, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, said: “There’s been a phenomenal increase in Russian submarine and underwater activity over the last 20 years.”

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has participated in this debate, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). It has been welcome to hear a consensus. We talked about the need to ensure that we are supporting our submariners and forces across the Royal Navy and elsewhere. We must continue to ensure that the independent nuclear deterrent is maintained properly, while always recognising the value it has to our local economy. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for your efforts today. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the UK submarine fleet.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Mental Health Services: Children · Hansard source

  More

  The long-term impact of the covid-19 pandemic on young people is often forgotten, with isolation leading to missed opportunities, lost life experiences and still unknown impacts on mental health. Child and adolescent mental health services referrals in Fife and across Scotland have skyrocketed, and despite a record Budget settlement from the UK Government, the SNP Scottish Government have told NHS Fife not even to bother asking for more funding to tackle this massive problem. I and colleagues will write to the Scottish Government about that. Will the Minister join me in urging the Scottish Government to reverse course and ensure that young people have the support that they deserve and need?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Mental Health Services: Children · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to improve mental health services for children.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I choose not to give way because I am conscious of the time and the others who still wish to speak. The SNP has fundamentally failed to use the powers of the Scottish Government to grow Scotland’s economy, and has instead presided over low growth and low productivity—areas that this UK Labour Government are now fixing, from which the Scottish Government should be learning lessons. Time and again, they have chosen political division over real progress. The litany of failure is embarrassing and they do not like hearing about it, but here it comes again: millions of pounds of public money wasted on ferries; failed and expensive attempts to fix health and social care; reductions in police numbers; cuts to fire and rescue; longer NHS waiting lists; and higher taxes on working Scots than on people in any other part of the UK. They even robbed Scotland’s offshore wind resources to paper over 17 years of failure. All that lies firmly at the door of the SNP Scottish Government. Most worryingly, they have failed in fully devolved areas, such as education and skills, to give young people the opportunities and support they need and deserve to fulfil their ambitions and meet their aspirations. The long-term impact of the pandemic on young people is often forgotten, with isolation leading to missed opportunities, lost life experiences and still unknown impacts on mental health. Yet the SNP are telling health boards not to even ask for additional funding, despite the increase in the budget. SNP excuses must now be at an end. This Labour Government have ended austerity in the UK by delivering the largest Budget settlement in the history of devolution, with an extra £4.9 billion available to spend. It delivers a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots and ends the injustice of the miners’ pension scheme, giving more moneys to miners in constituencies like mine, with money that will now boost the economies in those areas. The question for the SNP is: what will they do now that they have run out of excuses? I would hope that they would use the power and funds they have to take action, like finally making good on a promise to build a new health centre in Kincardine that was promised more than 10 years ago in my constituency, or to invest properly in NHS dental services—it is an outrage that there are currently no dentists in my constituency taking on new NHS patients—or to properly fund our police to help to tackle the antisocial behaviour we have seen recently in Dunfermline city centre. The 2024 UK Budget has delivered for the whole country, and this UK Labour Government are getting on with the job in health, education, transport and the funding of local services, all while the SNP whinge, complain and deflect. It is time for the SNP to take responsibility or get out of the way for a Scottish Labour Government that will get Scotland heading in the right direction once again.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. For years the SNP Scottish Government were able to blame an incompetent Tory Government for their own failures. Tory austerity had huge impacts for Scotland. The Tories crashed the economy, took money out of vital reserved areas such as defence, oversaw the systematic destruction of communities and failed to properly invest in our country. But the SNP has also failed in its 17 years in power. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland, the Fraser of Allander Institute and others have all criticised the SNP’s failure to respond to the pressures on Scotland’s public finances. Just before I came to this debate, I read that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned the Scottish Government that their back-of-a-fag-packet commitments could mean a cut of 15% to other areas of public spending. Scottish people deserve better.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth in my constituency, a former Royal Navy submarine now being safely and securely dismantled and recycled by Babcock, as a pilot project of the submarine dismantling programme. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme, which could secure hundreds of jobs in Dunfermline and Dollar by dealing with similar submarines at Rosyth over the coming decades?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme: Living Standards · Hansard source

  More

  Correcting the injustice in the mineworkers’ pension scheme has made an incredible difference to the former miners in my constituency of Dunfermline and Dollar after so many years. At the weekend, I met representatives from the BCSSS in Fife, including the men and women who are particularly affected by that scheme and the women who worked in the canteens and other areas, who feel that they have been left behind by the changes to the MPS. Will the Secretary of State meet campaigners in Fife and across Scotland regarding this issue, and will he ensure that he makes progress as quickly as possible to correct the injustice that those people have suffered as well?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme: Living Standards · Hansard source

  More

  4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme on the living standards of recipients.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I want to make a couple of small points. I have worked with ombudsmen in the past; ultimately, as we heard in the evidence earlier this week, somebody has to pay for an ombudsman. Often that is funded in other ways. I have previously worked with the energy ombudsman, whose funding comes from the energy companies. It is important to put that on the record. Furthermore, just because an amendment says that someone is independent, that does not make it so. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, building trust will be crucial for the person in this role. Later clauses make clear the independence the commissioner will have—whether that is their ability to enter premises without notice, should they see fit, or to consider a range of different requests. My feeling is that the intent of the amendment is already covered by the Bill. It is important that we make sure that the commissioner builds that trust, as was pointed out by several witnesses on Tuesday.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can assist him by drawing his attention to schedule 1 on page 10 of the Bill. It specifically says: “The Secretary of State may…provide staff in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State by the Commissioner”. My reading of that is that the commissioner, should they wish to, would be able to hire a King’s counsel for specific issues. At the same time, it would preserve the independence of the commissioner: we would not be putting anything into the Bill to make Parliament direct them, and we could make sure that independence was maintained.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, I think the difference between the American system and the British system is stark, not least because of the level of parliamentary scrutiny in this place. As the Minister has outlined, there is obviously a role for the Defence Committee to pass an opinion. That is our convention, and I think it works very well, in addition to the scrutiny we see from Members of all parties. If that became a problem, I am sure that both Opposition and Government Members would be tabling written questions, motions and whatever else. On Second Reading, the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), was clear that his Committee would look carefully at that. There is a strong difference between the American system and the British parliamentary system in that regard. The full independent public process that will be followed for the appointment is another key difference. It is unlike the US system, which has a presidential appointment and under which there is no vetting; anyone can be appointed. We therefore have an additional stage of security, both for public and for parliamentary scrutiny. I feel that amendment 5, although well intentioned, is unnecessary.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Minister, you mentioned ensuring that issues are handled and dealt with, and you said that previously issues had fallen away and not been taken up by the MOD. Would that not make it more sensible to have a duty on the face of the Bill for the MOD to respond to commissioner reports to ensure that action can be taken? Could you comment a little on that? Luke Pollard: It is quite normal in legislation of this type for there not to be provision in primary legislation. It is certainly the intent of the Secretary of State and me to ensure that provision is given to that coming back, but I am aware of an amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats in a similar way. I am happy taking that issue and having a discussion about what we can do to ensure that sufficient attention is given to any recommendations. When we were drafting the legislation, we tried to ensure that where a Secretary of State who has not been involved with the origin of the Armed Forces Commissioner may be in post, they cannot put in place any obstacles to the proper scrutiny of the welfare needs of armed forces personnel and their people. The expectation is that the Ministry of Defence would respond to those recommendations; what we would need to establish informally, which does not require primary legislation, are the methods for tracking the recommendations. Certainly, as a new Government, we are very aware that many of the recommendations made by the Defence Committee, for instance, to Government over the past decade sometimes have not even been responded to or had information provided back. As part of renewing the relationship between Parliament and the Ministry of Defence, we believe that enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of what the Ministry of Defence does will produce better outcomes both strategically and for our people, so that we will be able to respond to those recommendations from the Armed Forces Commissioner, HCDC and other bodies that report on the welfare needs of our people.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q If someone is dissatisfied with the outcome that they have received from the commissioner, is there a way they can appeal it? I think we covered this earlier with other witnesses, when I expressed concern about the decision on whether someone is materially affected being in the hands of the commissioner. What if there is a situation in which someone does not feel that their case has been taken up or that their issue has not been raised? Is there any kind of redress for them to go beyond that and determine why that is the case or to complain in any way? Luke Pollard: The legislation has been drawn so that the decisions on what issues to take up—effectively which priority to look at and which sequencing issue will be looked at, certainly on the thematic side—are decisions for the commissioner to be informed by. Certainly, for a commissioner of this type, the challenge procedure would be via judicial review, which would be similar for other commissioners of this style if there was a serious challenge. We are not trying to set an expectation that the commissioner will be able to undertake a thematic investigation immediately into every major topic. We have seen from the German model that the annual report may contain a large number of items or areas where they have received a form of representation—the German model calls it a petition, which does not quite work in the English translation—or where someone has written to the commissioner to raise a concern that is then used as a way of inputting feedback for the commissioner to make a decision on what to analyse. Clearly, given the quite considerable breadth of issues that fall under a general service welfare matter, quite a lot could be in there. I am grateful to colleagues for raising particular concerns, such as housing and SEND. There is a lot that could feature. We have drawn the legislation purposefully so that that decision is made by the commissioner; it is not made by Government Ministers directing where it should be. It is for the commissioner to establish those procedures, and I would expect the first commissioner to do that.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Finally, I have a question, which I raised on Second Reading, about the relationship with the devolved Administrations where there are devolved areas such as health. How do you envisage the commissioner working with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and across England? Luke Pollard: Defence is a reserved matter. It is appropriate that this legislation legislates for all the United Kingdom, but we are aware that some of the welfare matters are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, across the overseas territories—with the exception of Gibraltar, which has a different legislative set-up from the other OTs—they might be the responsibility of a non-Westminster Administration. In those circumstances, we have chosen not to require those devolved Administrations to report or respond in the same way as we do for the Ministry of Defence to be able to lay the report, but we are using the same kind of principles that SCOAF, who spoke earlier, has, which is effectively an agreement that there will be a conversation with the devolved Administrations on those matters. I expect a constructive relationship, as similar roles have with devolved Administrations, but we have not specified a requirement for them to report back or to respond to the commissioner’s report. What we are aware of, for instance, are issues around service housing at RAF Lossiemouth. That would be the responsibility of the local council in Scotland, as well as the Scottish Government. In those circumstances, if the commissioner was looking at housing in a Scottish context, you would expect them to make recommendations to the Scottish Government. I would expect them to have a dialogue with the Scottish Government to be able to deliver understanding, but the legislation grips on the Westminster Government, because defence is a reserved matter in that respect.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You mentioned the issues you sometimes have with this highly mobile population. Do you see the commissioner helping or playing a role in some of those issues? In Scotland, we have recently seen how the moving of forces personnel has caused issues with healthcare and education. Is that something where you could imagine the commissioner playing a role? Abby Dryden: I would hope so. The arrangements in the devolved nations, particularly in my experience of healthcare, are different, and it is about being conversant and fully aware of how it works in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a call for a nuanced and different understanding that supports some of the issues that present when personnel move to another devolved nation or another area of the United Kingdom.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is helpful. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to provide additional staff. Do you envisage that being required very quickly, or do you think the current staff will be able to cope? Mariette Hughes: That depends on the speed at which the legislation goes through and the plans—I noticed that there is an amendment on setting a proposed timeframe. Depending on when you want the office to go live, there needs to be a significant scoping period to determine how many staff will be required and what the budget will look like. Certain roles will be needed ahead of others, and for certain roles, current staff at SCOAF will simply be able to pick up some of the work. We have staff in our organisation who were working for us at the point of transitioning from the commissioner to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, so they have done this process and will be able to guide it through.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am conscious of the time. Could you answer that question, and include the role that you feel your charities would have with the commissioner in heading off some of those issues on a more practical, day-to-day basis? Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: I will start with the codicil, if I may, which goes back to my beaten record about context. The suicide report is a good example. The report on suicide in the Armed Forces community said that in every sector with young men aged 18 to 24, the Armed Forces were better than UK society. The headline in the paper at the weekend said that young men in the Army aged 18 to 24 are at equal risk as the population to suicide or damage. The commissioner needs the ability to say what it is about the service that is a prophylactic activity. One is too many, but by golly we are doing well.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to raise two points, and the first is mostly for Angela, from the issues you have been discussing in the focus groups. Do you feel that the terminology in clause 4 on general service welfare is appropriate and suitable for purpose? First of all, do you feel that the term “general service welfare” itself covers the correct areas? Similarly, in subsection (2) of new section 340IA, which the Bill will insert into the Armed Forces Act 2006, do we feel that words such as “may materially affect” welfare are the correct terminology? Do we feel that is sufficient? In subsection (3) of that new section, do we feel that a “relevant family member” is correctly drawn? Further down, subsection (7) of the new section states that the Secretary of State will give the commissioner “reasonable assistance”. From the focus groups and the work you have done with your members, is there a feeling that that is the correct terminology? Will that capture everything that they feel the commissioner needs to be involved in, or is there any work that can be done to broaden or tighten some of those definitions? Angela Kitching: I will do my best with that technical question. I think welfare is a well understood term in the armed forces community. Calling out particular experiences of discrimination, bullying and harassment is useful, because that is not held to be a welfare issue; it is held to be an employment and discrimination issue. On that one, that feels appropriate. The second part that you raised was about a relevant family member. That really does need significant further exploration in Committee, and further definition. I understand that the Government intend to publish regulations when the Bill passes from the Commons to the Lords, but understanding what a “relevant family member” is has been a really disputed point in the armed forces community. For example, the bereaved parents of people who have lost their service person often feel that they are not included in the world of the armed forces community, and it is the same for the siblings of those who are bereaved. The families of non-UK personnel who are not resident in the UK also often feel outside the environment. The issue is about understanding who a relevant family member is, and being open to the fact that that person could raise relevant information. Establishing really clearly whether somebody can raise a complaint or a concern—three terms are being used, “complaint”, “concern” and “issue”—and getting clarity over who is allowed to do what is extremely important, because otherwise it will unduly raise people’s expectations that they will be able to follow something through in a formal process, when what they are being invited to do is offer additional information for a thematic review. We need absolute clarity in the way that is communicated to the armed forces community—who has right to a complaint versus who is able to raise a concern or issue more broadly. The only other thing I would mention is that the process will be everything. I was surprised by the focus groups: we thought that we would collect information about issues that people were likely to want to raise with the commissioner if their scope were broadened, but what people wanted to talk about was how safe they would feel in the process—would they be prepared to raise something, would they be able to do it jointly as the commissioner just raised, would family members feel that they were able to raise concerns and would it affect their person’s career progression or ability to continue to make progress? There is a high level of distrust in certain areas of current service complaints, for example service-to-type complaints, where people are making accommodation complaints. At the moment, there is already a three-stage process that has to be closed before someone is able to approach the ombudsman. The middle section of that process is so overwhelmed at the moment that people are getting standard messages to say, “We are not able to progress your complaint on the current timelines.” That in itself would be a reason for somebody to be allowed to go to the ombudsman, but they will already have been through an extensive paperwork process to try to pursue their individual complaint before they get to the stage where the commissioner is reviewing the process. It is getting the balance of expectation right for individuals who are serving and their family members of whether this is likely to be effective and get faster, or whether thematic reviews would be a better place to put their efforts if they have a broader based complaint such as an accommodation issue.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Lastly, how do you envisage the new role working with the devolved Administrations? As a Scottish MP, I am thinking particularly of Scotland. How will the role interact with the veterans commissioners in place at the moment, and do you see any benefits from this role compared with the existing one? Mariette Hughes: Absolutely. It is all about collaborative working. There will certainly be areas where the commissioner cannot reach in and touch—or have control over—the provisions for service personnel, but it is about maintaining those good relationships. We are all trying to do the best for people, so it is about ensuring that we have those sensible conversations and everyone understands one another’s remits, and that we are able to bring issues to the fore and talk about them as we go. We are already doing some really good work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on uniformed protective services and behaviours. That is the sort of work I see expanding with this, and with the devolved Administrations we just sit round the table and talk about whose job it is to take this forward, because we can all agree that this is what needs to happen for people.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, and thank you for joining us. On the point about transfer, how do you envisage the transfer of staff from the existing system operating? I have just a couple of little points after that. Mariette Hughes: One of my main concerns is ensuring a smooth transition. My staff are quite excited for the new remit. Again, we as an organisation have been pushing for it for a while, but naturally there is consternation and a bit of anxiety about what it means for them. Broadly under the scope of the legislation, if the powers and functions of the ombudsman are simply lifting and shifting to the commissioner role, I anticipate that the majority of my staff will continue operating as usual. It is key for us that we do not disrupt the good work that has been happening. A lot of my staff have been at the organisation longer than I have, and they remember when the backlog was even worse. They are the ones who have done the work and delivered that performance. It would be absolutely devastating for them to see it disrupted, so ensuring that they have somewhere to operate from, have clear legislation, understand what they are able to do and can just continue as usual will be key. The other element to be considered is the other side of our business—those who look after our finance, IT and stats. Their roles will potentially need to expand to cover more under the Armed Forces Commissioner’s office, and that is what needs to be established through a transitionary period.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q As I mentioned the ombudsman, can I ask how you think the Bill will work with the existing veterans commissioners, especially in Scotland, and how can we make sure this is applied equally across different parts of the United Kingdom? Ted Arnold: To build on the RBL’s point in its briefing, it is vital that the commissioner is seen as independent. There is certainly a lot they can draw on from the experience of those independent veterans commissioners throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and, it is hoped, soon in England too. They bring valuable knowledge and insight and act as a voice for veterans in the entire armed forces community throughout the UK. We would certainly encourage that co-ordination between the two agencies, particularly around data and evidence sharing—not just with the veterans commissioners, but other agencies such as the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the defence transition services and organisations in the charitable sector. It is important that the work of commissioners is communicated and integrated as clearly as possible with other veterans agencies. That builds on the ombudsman’s point that those key relationships should be built and the right thematic reviews carried out.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Related to that is new section 340IA in clause 4(2), which states: “in the Commissioner’s opinion…may materially affect the welfare”. Is the concern that that word choice creates the possibility almost of a bottleneck being artificially created? Angela Kitching : There is a very broad invitation in new section 340IA in clause 4(3), which states: “The Commissioner must consider any request made by a person subject to service law or a relevant family member to carry out an investigation under this section.” That is a very broad funnel, which is helpful, but the question of how material the impact is on the individual could be the point at which it narrows. It is the question of the clarity of the process. If yours is not the issue that is taken forward from an individual complaint into a thematic review, how will you feel about that? Will you feel that your concerns are being dismissed or that you need to get together many more people to make a similar complaint? There will need to be a high degree of transparency about the decision-making in order for that to feel appropriate.