Helen Maguire MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome Lord amendments 2B and 2C, tabled by Baroness Goldie in response to the Government’s rejection of the original proposals. These amendments are not about party politics. They were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and others. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem: the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just a complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving and investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failures confidentially and without fear of reprisal. I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and me. However, the Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain. Let us be honest about what is at stake. Behind the language of “whistleblowing” are real people—soldiers, spouses and contractors—who have seen something go seriously wrong and want to make it right, not for themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint; they are raising the alarm. Yet again and again, we have seen these people let down—unheard, unsupported or even punished for speaking out. From the appalling housing conditions endured by military families to serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, the public have grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms are not enough. That is why introducing whistleblowing matters, and why the Lords amendments are so vital.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s motion may appear procedural, but it sits at the heart of how we govern our armed forces and, by extension, how we uphold parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. Under the Bill of Rights of 1688, a standing army in peacetime must be consented to annually by Parliament. That annual renewal is not just constitutional housekeeping. It is a clear democratic statement that power in this country derives from Parliament, and that our armed forces serve under the law, not above it. I will, of course, support the continuation order. The Armed Forces Act 2006 provides a unified legal framework that enables our military to function. Without it, the service justice system would fall away. Discipline could not be enforced and commanding officers would be stripped of lawful authority, and there would be no means to uphold the standards of service that we rightly expect. With that annual consent must come annual scrutiny. We owe it to those who serve under this Act to ensure that the political leadership they serve is worthy of their trust. The reality is that, over recent years, Conservative Governments have failed in their duty to our armed forces. While a brutal war raged in Europe, the previous Government were cutting 10,000 troops from our Army. Our armed forces are now smaller than they have been for generations, at a time when global threats are escalating. Equipment programmes are routinely over budget and behind schedule. The National Audit Office has repeatedly warned about capability gaps in areas such as battlefield communications, armoured vehicles and naval readiness, and our service personnel are too often asked to do more with less, and that includes living in unacceptable conditions with a housing system that does not meet their needs. The effectiveness of our armed forces depends not just on kit, but on people. When these people are being let down—when we ask them to serve under a legal framework renewed by this House, but do not support them properly in practice—we are not keeping our side of the bargain. The Liberal Democrats are calling for a different path. We demand the reversal of those short-sighted troop cuts and a long-term plan to increase regular troop numbers to over 100,000 once more. That begins with immediate action through a new joining and re-enlistment bonus scheme to help recruit and retain at least 3,000 personnel, stabilising the force while we plan for future growth. We are also calling for cross-party talks to agree a sustainable path to meet NATO’s new spending target of 5% of GDP, a goal that should be above party politics. The security of our country and our allies depends on serious, sustained commitment. Beyond strategy and numbers, we want to deliver a fair deal for those who serve. That means proper pay and decent conditions. It means high-quality housing that meets the decent homes standard. As a minimum, it means giving real support for the transition to civilian life through access to mental health care, job opportunities and practical assistance for families who so often bear the strain behind the scenes. We press the Government to deliver long overdue justice for LGBT veterans, many of whom are still awaiting compensation after years of discrimination and dismissal. That process must be fair, fast and comprehensive. We also demand full implementation of the Atherton report’s recommendations to tackle the entrenched issues of harassment and misogyny faced by too many women in uniform. Service should never come with conditions of fear or inequality. Looking ahead, we understand the new armed forces Act is expected to be introduced in the next year. When the Bill is brought forward, I will hold the Government to a high standard. It must not be a copy-and-paste exercise. It must be an opportunity to improve the culture of our armed forces by ensuring that equality, accountability and modernisation are at its heart. The continuation order maintains the legal foundation of our armed forces, but laws alone are not enough. We need leadership, we need commitments, and we need a Government who do not simply consent to the military’s existence once a year, but honour their service every single day with action, investment and respect.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that it would absolutely help our deterrence if we could increase troop numbers. The Liberal Democrats are calling for new bonus schemes to recruit and re-enlist 3,000 personnel, allowing the Government to reach their target of 73,000 trained troops as soon as possible, meaning that they can grow Army numbers further and faster beyond that in this Parliament. I encourage the Minister to consider those proposals.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  I know how important the defence industry is to my hon. Friend’s constituency, so I ask the Minister to consider that. We would end the scandal of poor service housing by requiring the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above the legal minimum standards. No one who puts their life on the line for this country should live with leaks or mould. We would extend access to military health services to service families, improve mental health support for veterans, and tackle discrimination and harassment in the armed forces by fully implementing the Atherton review recommendations. As the US has become an unpredictable ally, the UK has a greater responsibility to lead, to stand with our allies and to act decisively. We must now move faster to restore and grow our armed forces, reverse past cuts, and invest in the skills, infrastructure and sovereign capabilities that our military needs. The UK must rise to the challenges of standing with Ukraine, securing our alliances, and building the resilience to protect our people in the face of a more dangerous world.

• 25 Jun 2025 · National Armaments Director · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s debate takes place at a moment of acute global instability, with war still raging in Ukraine, mounting threats from hostile states and an unreliable security partner in the White House. The world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation. In that context, the Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in February to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. The Government’s subsequent commitment to a new NATO defence spending target of 5% is also the right decision. It reflects a recognition of the new threat environment that we find ourselves in and of what is necessary to support Britain’s long-term defence. It remains the case, however, that the Government are still playing catch up on questions of the nation’s security. The last Conservative Government cut the Army by 10,000 troops, even as tanks rolled across continental Europe. That decision was staggeringly short-sighted and irresponsible. Despite that, this Government have dragged their feet on rebuilding the strength and size of our Army and have said that there will be no expansion to Army numbers beyond 73,000 troops until the next Parliament. In the context of the threats we face, that timeline can only be summarised as a day late and a pound short. The British Army remains one of the strongest deterrents we have—if the Government can commit to supporting its regeneration fully. While I welcome this Government’s shift in tone compared with the Conservatives, I urge Ministers again to commit to a much more rapid reversal of those troop cuts.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  Our thoughts also go out to all those families involved in the tragic air crash in India today. I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives’ botched deal with Europe left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. Our hope is that this new agreement will work to the genuine benefit of Gibraltarians, leaving no lingering questions over the status of Britain’s sovereignty of the territory and our commitment to the self-determination of Gibraltarians. There are a number of vital principles at stake. To ensure that the deal effectively secures the future of the Gibraltarian economy, it is vital that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the agreement and vote on it. Will the Minister therefore commit to bringing the deal before the House for a review and outline when MPs can expect to vote on it? It is also vital that the Government provide further clarity on the timeline for implementing the deal. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether a provisional date has been agreed for its implementation and whether that timeline provides enough of an opportunity for parliamentarians to provide adequate scrutiny? Another principle is that nothing about Gibraltar should be agreed without Gibraltarians. Will the Minister provide further details on what steps have been taken to consult them, including representatives of business, to ensure that their interests have been front and centre in the negotiations? The Spanish Government have been willing in the past to act unilaterally over Gibraltar and to the detriment of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister outline what mechanisms will exist in the deal to ensure compliance and effective dispute resolution in the event of future possible unilateral action, thus giving confidence to Gibraltarians that the deal will be enforceable? Finally, will the Minister confirm the lifespan of the deal and whether it will include an opt-out clause, ensuring the ultimate guarantee of Gibraltar’s sovereignty?

• 19 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week’s “Panorama” documentary brought fresh allegations of war crimes by Special Air Service and Special Boat Service forces, raising grave new questions about the conduct of the special forces during Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. It also highlighted the vital importance of promoting transparency and accountability across our armed forces. In the light of these developments and the ongoing public inquiry, will the Secretary of State consider looking at how Parliament could scrutinise the work of the special forces?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate. I want to start by saying that the return of Israeli strikes on Gaza is horrific for all Palestinians, for the remaining hostages and their families, and indeed for the world. We need a return to the ceasefire now. I thank the hon. Member for raising so many points that I was not aware of; it would be good to hear the Minister’s response on those particular issues. As early as April 2024, the Liberal Democrat leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel. Today I reaffirm that position: the UK must immediately halt all arms exports to Israel. During Foreign Office questions in October, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), pushed the then Minister for Development to “agree that the UK should…cease all arms exports to Israel”. —[ Official Report , 22 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 168.] In response, the Minister talked around the issue and gave no clear response. That is unacceptable: we need decisive action, not evasion. Liberal Democrats have long championed tougher controls on UK arms exports, to ensure that British-made weapons do not contribute to human rights violations. We support a presumption of denial for arms exports to all Governments listed in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s human rights and democracy report as human rights priorities, which include Israel. Ultimately, the Liberal Democrats believe that only a political resolution, based on a two-state solution, can bring lasting peace, security and dignity to Palestinians and Israelis. However, developments in recent weeks have undermined efforts by moderates on both sides to maintain a ceasefire and move towards a durable peace in the region. The Israeli Government’s decision to block the supply of aid into Gaza and their cutting of the electricity supply are unlawful and must be unequivocally condemned. It is crucial that we see a return to the ceasefire, with its conditions respected by all sides, and negotiations advanced to agree on phase 2. Electricity and essential supplies must flow into Gaza to alleviate the immense human suffering. Blocking aid threatens the lives of the millions of Gazans dependent on humanitarian assistance after the destruction of the past 17 months. The UK Government must apply pressure to ensure a return to a ceasefire, and supplies must resume without delay. Hamas must move immediately to release the remaining hostages, including the bodies of those killed in captivity. The treatment of hostages at the hands of Hamas, both in captivity and during their release, has been despicable. It is also clear that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the west bank is illegal and is fuelling further tension, undermining the efforts of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to move towards peace. The UK Government must outline concrete steps to put pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu to address rising settler violence and the illegal expansions. Inaction on this issue must end. The Liberal Democrats have called for a ban on the import of goods from illegal settlements. An increasing number of our allies, including Spain, Norway and Ireland, have formally recognised a Palestinian state. It is now time that the UK joins them. Recognition of Palestine on 1967 lines would send a strong signal that we are committed to a two-state solution and to supporting the work of Israeli and Palestinian moderates to that end. Given the calls by far-right Israeli Ministers such as Smotrich for the annexation of the west bank, the urgency of that recognition cannot be overstated. President Trump’s return to the White House adds further layers of complexity and urgency. His reckless comments on the future of Gaza, including suggestions that Palestinians should be removed from the strip, have further inflamed tensions. It is crucial that the UK steps up and pushes for a diplomatic resolution that recognises both an Israeli and a Palestinian state. Recognising Palestine would also inject hope into Palestinian society that having its own state is possible, which in turn would help to wrest control back from the extreme actors at the edges of Palestinian society. In conclusion, the UK must have a principled and strategic approach: halt arms exports to Israel, hold all parties accountable under international law, and champion a two-state solution. This Government must stop ducking those critical issues and take a stronger stance, one that can contribute to a just and lasting peace.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Maternity Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this hugely important debate. Today I will highlight both the excellence and the challenges of maternity services in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. Last year, the dedicated staff of Epsom and St Helier university hospitals delivered more than 3,400 babies. Their commitment to patient care is outstanding, with care being ranked No. 1 in London for patient experience. Both units have also achieved UNICEF UK baby friendly hospital initiative gold accreditation, reflecting their exceptional support for new mothers’ feeding choices. Those outcomes are testament to the experience, compassion and hard work of the staff, despite the conditions they work under. Our maternity services are held back by infrastructure that is simply not fit for purpose. Some of the hospital buildings at Epsom and St Helier are older than the NHS itself. Those conditions make it harder to provide the high standards of care that mothers and babies deserve. At St Helier hospital, the maternity unit’s lift regularly breaks down, making it increasingly difficult to safely transfer maternity patients to intensive care or the main theatres. Both Epsom and St Helier hospitals lack waiting areas and suitable space to maintain privacy, making it harder to implement a nationally mandated triage system and to provide private spaces, which are vital for bereaved families. Every year, the trust spends millions just on patching up these crumbling facilities, which is not sustainable. The cost of maintaining outdated buildings and equipment diverts critical resources away from the frontline. Furthermore, staff are stretched thin by running duplicate services across two sites, which affects patient outcomes. The promised new hospital in Sutton was meant to solve those problems by bringing together emergency care, maternity services and in-patient paediatrics in a modern, specialist facility. However, the Government have pushed construction back to at least 2032, leaving our community in limbo. Meanwhile, Epsom general hospital alone needs £44 million-worth of repairs, with 46% classed as high risk, meaning that failure to address them could lead to serious injury or major service disruption. If the UK is to be the safest place in the world to have a baby, we must do better. Beyond the building, staffing remains a critical issue. A local midwife recently shared with me the reality of working in our maternity services. She described how the staffing problems in maternity continue to be dire. There simply are not enough midwives rostered each day to cover the work, which makes it unsafe for women and their babies, and creates an unsustainable working environment for those left behind. Midwives are working longer hours, starting early or leaving late, taking on more than they should just to ensure women are seen. This leads to burnout, and many midwives ultimately leave the profession as they feel that the stress and huge responsibilities are not matched by adequate support or fair pay. As a woman, the midwife told me how deeply saddened she is that this is the service being offered to women in this country. The care a woman receives during childbirth has lifelong implications—not just for her, but for her children and for society as a whole. She worries that women’s choices, particularly around home births, are becoming increasingly sidelined. Women’s autonomy over their own bodies is becoming less relevant, and she fears what that means for the future of maternity care for our daughters and granddaughters. Her worries reflect those of so many across the country. I have three children, all of whom were born successfully in London. I wanted a home birth for all of them. Sadly, we were only successful in having one home birth due to complications, but I am grateful that I had the choice. I thank Brierly midwives for that, but not every woman today has that choice. The people of Epsom and Ewell, Leatherhead and Ashtead—and around the UK—deserve outstanding maternity care, unhampered by crumbling infrastructure, chronic understaffing and a lack of investment. As a first step, I urge the Government to release the full impact assessment of the delays to the new hospital programme and reconsider the decision. We cannot afford to let maternity services deteriorate any further. The safety of women, babies and midwives depends on it.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been shrouded in delay and uncertainty. At a time when Europe faces its gravest security crisis in decades, this is unacceptable. Promises without a clear path are hollow, and the Government should commit to setting out by Easter a detailed and credible plan for reaching 2.5%. We must also make the right spending decisions, and the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to the Army? He mentioned retention, which is another critical issue. Improving the living conditions of our armed forces must be a priority if we are to attract and keep the talent we need. Finally, the ongoing problems of inefficient defence procurement undermine our readiness, so what is the Minister doing to tackle those long-standing problems? The Government must stop dragging their heels, set out the pathway to 2.5% and end the uncertainty.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is an is an important Bill, and one that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues broadly welcome. However, we believe that it must go further. Before turning to the detail of our proposed changes, I want to acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the opportunity it presents to deliver meaningful change for the armed forces community. I thank the Minister and his team for all the hard work they have put into bringing the Bill to the House. The Armed Forces Commissioner as proposed in the Bill will serve as an independent and vital advocate for service personnel and their families, reporting directly to Parliament. The role is long overdue. For too long, service personnel and their families have felt neglected, overlooked and unsupported. The commissioner’s remit will include addressing a wide range of issues from unacceptable behaviours and substandard housing to equipment concerns. The power to visit defence sites unannounced and commission reports is particularly welcome, as is the consolidation of the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s responsibilities into this more robust role. The Liberal Democrats welcome those provisions as steps in the right direction, but steps alone are not enough. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just morally right; it is a strategic imperative. Recruitment and retention challenges directly impact on national security. We cannot allow systemic neglect to erode the morale, trust and effectiveness of those who defend our nation. Time and again, reports from reviews such as the Haythornthwaite and Atherton reviews have highlighted the failures of previous Governments, which include failures to provide decent housing and support service families adequately or to tackle issues such as discrimination and sexual harassment. Those are not new revelations; they are systemic problems that require a new approach. The former Conservative Government failed to deliver for our armed forces. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call for a fair deal including strengthening the armed forces covenant, ensuring that service accommodation is fit for purpose and delivering for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The Bill is an opportunity to begin addressing those issues comprehensively, and I am proud to propose amendments that would have it deliver for all members of the armed forces community. New clause 1 seeks to extend the commissioner’s remit to include individuals going through the recruitment process. At present, the Bill excludes those individuals, but recruits can face challenges during that initial formative stage. Recruits can be asked to stay on bases overnight, and we cannot ignore that they may encounter issues during such trips. It is essential to understand those issues to retain recruits, as many currently drop out, which we assume is due to the long waits that they are currently experiencing but may stem from issues that we are unaware of. The new clause would ensure that support was available from the very start of their journey into the armed forces, not just after they sign on the dotted line. Amendment 1 would address another critical omission. The Bill currently leaves the definition of “relevant family members” to the Government, which creates ambiguity and risks exclusion. The amendment would ensure that kinship carers and the family members of deceased service personnel were explicitly included. Those groups face unique challenges, and it is vital that they are not left behind. The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner is a positive development, but we need to ensure that the role is truly independent, adequately resourced and held to account for its actions. Several key issues must be addressed to guarantee the commissioner’s effectiveness. For the commissioner to function properly, they must have adequate financial and practical support. Without sufficient resources, they will struggle to fulfil their vital responsibilities. Amendment 3 would place a direct duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the commissioner’s office is properly resourced—both financially and practically—to carry out its work effectively. That would ensure that the role would not be hampered by a lack of support. Additionally, transparency and accountability are essential. If the commissioner is to be a meaningful advocate for service personnel and their families, their work must be open to scrutiny. Amendment 4 would require the commissioner to publish annual reports to Parliament, ensuring that their efforts are transparent and that they can be held accountable for their actions. Such reports would allow Parliament, the public and service personnel to understand the welfare issues faced by service personnel and their families. To safeguard the commissioner’s independence and credibility further, amendment 5 would have their appointment subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by a parliamentary Select Committee. That process would allow Members of Parliament to ensure that the best person for the job is appointed. This person needs to be independent of Government influence and focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Such additional scrutiny would help safeguard the integrity of the role and ensure that it remains focused on the needs of the armed forces community. Further, the armed forces covenant should be central to the commissioner’s work. The covenant is a fundamental framework that guides how we treat our service personnel and their families, ensuring fairness and respect in all aspects of their lives. Amendment 7 would enshrine the covenant’s principles in the commissioner’s remit, ensuring that those values remain at the heart of their mission. Given that the covenant is at the heart of how we support our armed forces, it should be explicitly included in the Bill. It is essential that we do not delay putting the Bill into action. That is why amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to publish a timeframe for the appointment of the commissioner within six months of the passing of the Act. Our armed forces and their families need this service urgently and cannot wait around for years for action to be taken. Following the damning findings of the Atherton and Etherton reports, it is clear that minority groups including women, ethnic minorities, LGBT+ personnel and non-UK nationals face systemic challenges within the armed forces. The Atherton report, published in 2021, focused on the experience of women in the armed forces. Four thousand female service personnel and veterans completed a survey to inform the inquiry, and shockingly 62% of respondents had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service, sometimes at the hands of senior officers. It is unacceptable that women who serve in the armed forces too often face sexual harassment or misogyny. That issue has not been adequately addressed, reflecting a lack of moral courage within parts of the armed forces, despite good intentions across the services. Amendment 2 would require the commissioner to take specific action to consider and address issues facing service personnel from minority groups: not only female service personnel but black, Asian and minority ethnic personnel, LGBT+ personnel and those not from the UK. That would be backed by annual reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. That is essential to ensure that all voices are heard and no one in the armed forces community is overlooked. The Bill must be part of a wider effort to improve the quality of life of service personnel and their families. Housing, for instance, remains a persistent issue. Decent housing is not a privilege but a right, and service families deserve homes that are safe, comfortable and fit for purpose. Just last week in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) tabled an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill that would have extended the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation, ensuring that all members of the armed forces would have the living standards they deserve. I was beyond disappointment when the Government voted it down. The Bill represents progress, but it is not the finished article. Although I do not wish to press new clause 1 to a vote, our proposed changes are about fairness, accountability and doing right by all those who serve and their families. Let us seize this moment to deliver real and lasting change for the armed forces community. They have given so much for us; it is time that we gave back to them.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I asked the Government to ensure that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards of social housing, as set out in the decent homes standard. The Minister for Veterans confirmed that this is already done, so will the Government support amending the Renters’ Rights Bill officially to extend the decent homes standard to Ministry of Defence service family accommodation?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Housing: Military Personnel and Families · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023, there were over 5,000 reports of damp and mould in service accommodation. Members of the armed forces are willing to put their lives on the line to support the freedoms that we take for granted, so it is inconceivable that they and their families are forced to live in homes filled with damp and mould. Now that the MOD has agreed to buy back thousands of these family homes, will the Government commit to ensuring that all service family accommodation meets the minimum standards for social housing as set out in the decent homes standard?

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

  More

  Q We would all like the Bill’s provisions to be accessible to all service personnel. How can the Secretary of State ensure that it will be accessible to everyone, including reservists, female personnel, the LGBTQ+ community, and non-UK, black and minority ethnic personnel? Luke Pollard: The hon. Lady is a relatively new Member in this House. If she had been here over the last seven years, she would have seen this massive gay over here—me—speaking loudly about equality matters. I feel incredibly strongly about this. From an armed forces point of view, we should value all our people. That is the intent of this Bill: to provide an opportunity for all our service people and their families—a cohort of people absolutely essential for the delivery of our national security who have often been forgotten in legislative and some MOD approaches in the past. There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner was undertaking their reports, they would be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and families. I would expect that to be present. If looking at some of the equivalent reports we have seen, there would be an opportunity for the commissioner to look at the experience not only of the whole armed forces but groups within it—however those may be defined. There would be an opportunity for the commissioner to make that distinction in experience, not just in determining what issue to raise but also how they investigate it. I would expect that to be front and centre. If it is not included, I would expect Parliament to be able to scrutinise and ask questions of the commissioner in due course.

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

  More

  Q We would all like to see a strong and independent commissioner—a real champion for the armed forces. What certainty can we gain that the Secretary of State’s powers, as set out in the Bill, will not undermine the commissioner’s independence? Luke Pollard: We have deliberately drawn the powers to be quite limited. The Secretary of State can restrict access only on national security grounds or where there would be a danger to a person. The example that might work there is visiting the frontline during combat operations. There would clearly be a danger to our people if there were to be a formal visit, and there would probably be a danger to the commissioner in that situation. That gives a prudent safeguard power. We have deliberately tried to separate the powers that might normally exist for the Secretary of State from this role so that there is more independence for the commissioner. By establishing a novel route to Parliament, we have also provided Parliament with greater ability to raise any concerns. If the commissioner encounters any difficulties with interactions with the Ministry of Defence or other providers of services for our people, they are able to raise that in their reports. Those are then given to Parliament to be able to independently scrutinise, separate from the MOD. What we have tried to do is to separate those functions out. I think we have succeeded in doing that in the Bill. The style of how that will happen in practice will depend on the person appointed to the office and how that office is established. However the principle of impartiality and independence from the Ministry of Defence—and, importantly, from the single services—is at the heart of this legislation. The legislation is designed to build trust, so that people can go to the commissioner if they want to raise a concern.

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

  More

  Q General, from your past experience with the ombudsman service, what would be your biggest ask of the commissioner in their new role? Lt General Sir Nicholas Pope: If the commissioner is going to be shining a light on the current welfare conditions of the armed forces community, in a way that enables Parliament to have the evidence for a sensible discussion about the way in which the Ministry conducts its business and makes its choices—about resource allocation, policy formulation and service delivery—then, to have proper teeth, I would want to see, within three, four or five years, some tangible changes in either resource allocations or the metrics that are coming back through the commissioner to Parliament. Unless we see that, there will be no real impact or effect out of creating the post. To get real teeth, we have to have the feedback loop that Andrew talked about, in a way that matters.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today, I speak for my party in support of the legislation before us. It is clear that the armed forces community has been let down, not least under the previous Conservative Government. The findings of recent reports and surveys are testament to that. In 2023, the Haythornthwaite report found that the most common reason for leaving the armed forces was the impact on family and personal life. Overall satisfaction with service life was at just 45%. Only just over a third of personnel reported that they felt valued by the service. The Atherton report found that “the MoD and the Services are failing to protect female personnel and to help servicewomen achieve their full potential”. It is unacceptable that the experience of women in the armed forces, and the challenges that many female personnel face, such as sexual harassment and discrimination, have not been properly addressed. Armed forces families are also too frequently being let down. In the armed forces continuous attitude survey, one third of spouses said that they would be happier if their partner chose to leave the service. Service families are too frequently unable to get basic support, such as access to information, except through the member of the family who serves. The complaints system is not working. In her most recent annual report to Parliament, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, was scathing about it; she remains “unable to say that the Service Complaints system is efficient, effective or fair”. That is the eighth consecutive year that she has reached that assessment. Women remain disproportionately represented in the complaints system. Those who serve in the armed forces, and their families, are putting their life on the line for our country. It is profoundly disappointing that report after report makes it clear that they have been, and continue to be, neglected, ignored and taken for granted. They deserve better. Delivering a fair deal for the armed forces community is not just the right thing to do; it is crucial for our national security. The conditions that service personnel and their families endure contribute directly to the crisis in recruitment and retention that our armed forces are experiencing. In an increasingly insecure world, with Putin’s troops waging their illegal war in Ukraine and Trump about to return to the White House, we cannot afford to not take this issue seriously. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the Bill. We welcome the fact that the commissioner will be a much-needed point of contact for armed forces families; will be a public champion for families, having been tasked in law with raising awareness of the welfare issues faced by the armed forces community; and will be properly empowered to independently investigate complaints—for example, they can arrive on sites without notice. We are pleased that the legislation has been introduced to Parliament less than six months after the election. We will support the Bill, and we will work with Members on all sides of the House to strengthen it during its passage through this House. I thank the Service Complaints Ombudsman and her office for the work that they have done since 2015, offering independent insight into processes and highlighting the failings of the complaints system. It is right for the work of the office to be subsumed into this stronger role, but as the ombudsman made clear, further work needs to be done to bring the service complaints system up to standard. I would have liked this legislation to be used to set that in motion. We must ensure that the Bill delivers for armed forces families. Families are at the heart of the Bill, and will clearly be of significant importance to the work of the new commissioner, but clause 4 leaves the definition of “family member” up to the Secretary of State. We hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will commit to a definition in the Bill, so that there is certainty for armed forces families. It is important that we ensure that families made up of kinship carers—there are often aunts and uncles who care for nieces or nephews—are in scope of the definition. We must also think of divorced partners who are still affected. It is vital, too, that bereaved families come in scope of the definition, and accordingly the work of the commissioner. I hope that Members from across the House agree that bereaved families need the advocacy of the new commissioner as much as, if not more than, anyone else in the armed forces community. We also need to ensure that reservists and recruits have equal access to the commissioner. As for female, black and minority ethic, non-UK and LGBTQ+ personnel, the Government must ensure that the commissioner’s office is equipped with up-to-date evidence and community connections to identify issues and be able to reach into those communities. It is to that advocacy role that I now turn. Clause 1 makes clear that the role of the commissioner will be not just to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families, but to improve the public’s awareness of welfare issues experienced by armed forces families. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on how the Government envisage the interaction of those two separate functions in practice. The crucial issue is resource—we need to ensure that both those ambitions can be met, as well as the existing responsibilities of the ombudsman role which is being subsumed into the commissioner’s remit—and I urge the Government to offer assurances on that front. I also hope that the Minister will be able to offer further clarification of the appointment process, as well as subsequent timescales for getting the commissioner’s office up and running. The Government have committed to pre-appointment scrutiny of the preferred candidate by the Defence Committee, but what happens if the Select Committee disagrees? Clearly, whoever is appointed to this role must be truly independent of Government. Under the previous Conservative Government we saw the limitations of the existing public appointments process, even when Select Committees were involved. Giving relevant Committees a confirmatory vote would greatly strengthen the safeguards in the appointments process, and would ensure that the best person for the job was put forward, rather than the best person for the Government. Can the Minister also clarify how the commissioner will interact with the existing Veterans Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the proposed national veterans’ commissioner for England? The Armed Forces Commissioner must prioritise accessibility to the communities that he or she aims to represent and support. We must ensure that if access is digital only, that does not create a barrier if, for example, people are deployed or have a low reading age. It is vital that our armed forces know who they can turn to for support when they need it. Military personnel are trained to be resilient and endure tough conditions, and the culture does not make it easy for people to reach out; I have personal experience of that. If we are to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner, the Government must include an effort for culture change as well, and I would welcome a greater understanding of how they will achieve that. I understand that people who have served in the armed forces may be considered for this position. Such people could bring valuable knowledge and insight, but how will the Government ensure that they are sufficiently removed from the current culture to bring an independent perspective? It is also vital that, while welcoming the creation of this new role, we acknowledge that it will in no way be a silver bullet to address the many problems facing the armed forces community, which I have mentioned and which have been touched on by other Members. To deal with serious complaints, for instance, we need to strengthen rules to help support whistleblowers across Government, and the Liberal Democrats continue to support the creation of an office of the whistleblower for that purpose. We urge the Government to go further and fully implement the Atherton report, to ensure that women in the armed forces, who have been let down far too frequently, receive the fundamental protections that they deserve. We should also look at strengthening the armed forces covenant. Will the commissioner’s role include giving due regard to the covenant, and will the Minister agree to strengthen the covenant by placing a legal duty on all Departments to give due regard to it? We will continue to present proposals to improve the quality of life for service personnel and their families. There are basic steps that we can and should take, such as establishing a one-stop shop for families of service personnel so they can easily gain access to information, including the publication of a guide and an accessible helpline. Housing is also hugely important: service personnel and their families should be able to live in a decent home. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who has campaigned for a decent homes standard for military housing, and I hope that when the Renters’ Rights Bill comes back to the House for its remaining stages, the Government will listen to Liberal Democrat representations on the need to enshrine that in law. The armed forces community deserves a fair deal. The Liberal Democrats support these measures as a step in the right direction, but we will continue to call on the Government to do more to ensure that service personnel and their families are no longer taken for granted.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment · Hansard source

  More

  We are deeply concerned about the impact of the US elections on Ukraine and Europe. President Trump is an unreliable partner and, within days of his election, US support to Ukraine is regrettably under question. Clearly the UK needs to urgently set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We need to lead in Europe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the previous Government’s legacy on our Army, which is the smallest since the Napoleonic era, is deeply regrettable? Will he commit to securing a UK-EU defence and security agreement, as was on the table while Theresa May was Prime Minister? Will the Government convene a summit on saving Ukraine, to begin the process of seizure of frozen Russian assets, so that the UK and our European allies can support Ukraine regardless of the path the US takes?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This year, British military jets have been involved in several operations in the middle east without consulting Parliament. Allowing the Commons to debate military action wherever feasible is essential to ensuring public accountability. Will the Secretary of State set out the Government’s stance on the use of a parliamentary vote to approve military action?