Luke Pollard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Members will be aware of the news breaking in Qatar, with reports of explosions at 19.35 pm local time. This is a fast-changing situation, and we are monitoring it closely. Members will also understand that I will not be able to give details at this stage, but the UK Government utterly condemn any escalation. We have put force protection measures at their highest level to safeguard our personnel in the region. We have robust measures in place to protect our armed forces personnel, and their safety is our top priority. That is why we have been calling for de-escalation and diplomacy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will understand that I will try to keep this statement short, so that I can return to the Department to be fully briefed. However, there are a number of developments that I wish to update the House about in the meantime. Earlier today, the Foreign Secretary made a statement updating the House on the military action undertaken by the United States, which conducted airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. No British forces were involved in those US strikes, but the UK and the US share an ambition that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. America is the UK’s closest defence and security ally, and our militaries will continue to work in lockstep every day. As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a critical moment for the middle east. It follows a period of escalating conflict in an already volatile region. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister urged Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis, and I echo that call. There is no route of Iranian military retaliation that brings this crisis to an end; the only off-ramp for Iran is to get serious and return to diplomacy. The Ministry of Defence’s No.1 priority has been the protection of our people and our bases in the region. Working alongside the Chief of the Defence Staff, Ministers have directed commanders to take all necessary measures to protect our servicemen and women. Force protection is now at its highest state across all deployed units in the middle east. The additional RAF Typhoon jets announced by the Prime Minister have now arrived in the region to reinforce our posture, deter threats, and reassure our partners. I want to be clear that we will not rule out sending further capabilities if they are required, and that we will take all steps necessary to protect our people and our assets. As we recognised in the strategic defence review, we must always put our people at the heart of our defence plans, which is why we have acted swiftly to bolster our defences and ensure our forces are supported and protected. I thank all our outstanding personnel who have worked tirelessly over the past few days—often with little sleep—to support the UK’s response, both at home and abroad. Further to media reporting over the weekend, I can confirm that we are in contact with the authorities in Cyprus regarding the arrest of a British man. Due to the ongoing police investigation, I am limited in what I can say, but I can tell the House that RAF Akrotiri was not breached. We are continually monitoring this fast-changing situation, and stand ready to respond to any threats. I now turn to the protection of our bases at home. Last week’s illegal entry and criminal vandalism by the group Palestine Action at RAF Brize Norton was disgraceful. I can confirm that two RAF Voyager aircraft were damaged by paint, but there was no further damage to infrastructure or assets, nor has there been any impact on planned operations from Brize Norton. Not only was this action epically stupid; it was a direct attack on our national security. Our personnel stationed at RAF Brize Norton serve with total dedication and professionalism. They work tirelessly to support our armed forces deployed across the world and to deliver military assistance to Ukraine, and have been formally recognised for their contribution in flying humanitarian aid into Gaza. As such, this action does nothing to further the path to peace. It does nothing to further the Palestinian cause—it does nothing to further any cause—and everyone across the House is united in condemning it. This must never happen again. I spoke earlier today with the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff about this incident. Enhanced security measures across the whole of defence have been put in place since Friday, including on aircraft and airfield-operating surfaces. RAF patrols have increased, physical security has been improved at the suspected point of entry at Brize Norton and the Defence Secretary has ordered that a full security review be conducted at pace, not only at Brize, but across the defence estate. Counter Terrorism Policing South East and Thames Valley police are leading the investigation to establish the exact circumstances of the events and to identify those responsible. We will continue to work with the police and pursue those responsible for this unacceptable act of vandalism. This incident is subject to a live counter-terrorism investigation, so I hope the House will understand that I cannot provide any further details at this time. This is more than just disruption. Palestine Action’s activity has increased in frequency and severity. Its methods have become more aggressive, with its members demonstrating a willingness to use violence. Its activities meet the threshold set out in the statutory tests established under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that is why the Home Secretary is today announcing that she intends to proscribe Palestine Action. The instability in the middle east and the continued war in Ukraine show why this week’s NATO leaders’ summit in the Hague matters. We are living in a more dangerous and unpredictable world. This summit is a moment where NATO allies will pledge to step up on defence spending to boost our collective security. President Trump and NATO chief Mark Rutte are right that the current NATO spending pledge of at least 2% of GDP on defence is a relic of an old era. We are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for defence and defence spending. That is why the Government announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. It is why this week at NATO we will discuss a new, higher spending target with our allies. The United Kingdom is up for that discussion. We will make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. I commend this statement to the House.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  As there is an ongoing counter-terrorism inquiry into the activities of Palestine Action, which conducted a direct attack on UK military assets at a time of heightened tensions, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the full details. I will say to my hon. Friend, though, that the proscription of Palestine Action has been considered for a long time by my colleagues in the Home Office. It is a decision that they have taken after considering the facts—those in the public domain and those, perhaps, held privately. We are certain that this is the right course of action to keep our country safe in these difficult times.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the college at Harrogate. It is a really important part of the defence family and I know that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is sat next to me on the Front Bench, takes an especially keen interest in the affairs of Harrogate. As the review is conducted and we see what lessons can be learnt from the incident at Brize Norton, we will be taking measures possibly at all military installations, including training establishments across the country if that is suitable. But I am certain that the Minister for Veterans would welcome a further conversation with the hon. Gentleman in relation to Harrogate in particular.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary was very clear, when he was at the Dispatch Box for his statement earlier, that the UK and the US share the same long-term ambition to ensure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member, who I also have a lot of time for. At no point have I sought to downplay the activities of Palestine Action. Indeed, today the Government have taken the strong step of proscribing Palestine Action, precisely because its activities are a threat to our national security. It is for that reason that the Home Secretary has made her decision. In relation to the military bases near the right hon. Member’s constituency in Salisbury plain, and indeed to those in the constituency that I represent in Plymouth, the review of our security arrangements covers all military bases. From the Defence Secretary to the Chief of the Defence Staff and others in the Ministry of Defence, we are looking carefully at what lessons can be learned, what improvements can be put in place and—noting the conclusion of the strategic defence review that we need to invest more in this area—how we can implement the findings of the SDR as quickly as we can. In relation to the right hon. Member’s points about policing, I would be very happy to discuss them further with him, because I know he is an expert in this area.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the support he provides to the armed forces in his constituency. The force protection measures we have introduced as a Government are there to keep our people safe. We are at the highest level of force protection for deployed forces in the middle east. As part of that, we have sought to draw down non-essential personnel to make sure that the footprint is as appropriate as possible. That includes families, but they are very limited in number given the theatre we are talking about. The investment in military housing that he mentioned is certainly a priority for this Government because, frankly, the state of the homes we inherited was not good enough, which is why we are investing £1.5 billion extra in this Parliament to provide homes that really are fit for heroes.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman speaks passionately for the Palestinian people and has done so for a very long time. This statement was about not Gaza but the force protection of our military units in the middle east. But as he has given me the opportunity to do so, let me say very clearly that it is this Government’s position that what we see in Gaza is intolerable. We need to see a restoration of the ceasefire, we need to see Hamas release all the remaining hostages, and we need to see aid at scale delivered to the Palestinian people and a step towards the lasting peace that comes with a two-state solution. There is a lot of work to do in that respect. On the word “terrorist”, I was very careful with the language that I used in the statement. It is powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 that are being used. When the Home Secretary issued the written ministerial statement, she was also very careful about the language she used. The actions of Palestine Action have now crossed the threshold under provisions in that Act. That is why she has taken action today.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  In my hon. Friend’s short time in this House, she has become a real champion of our armed forces—not just in her constituency, but across the country. She is right to pay tribute to SJC in Aldershot; General Charlie Collins is a superb leader of that part of our armed forces. The SDR makes it very clear that we wish to further enhance and upgrade the capabilities of UK homeland defence, and we will do so. In relation to the security improvements that the review will seek to identify, that work will be based on the incident at Brize Norton, but it will also look at the threats that we face not just at that particular RAF base, but at all UK military establishments. I am certain that I will be back in the House to report on progress in due course.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The dangerous and worrying precedent was set by Palestine Action when it breached an RAF base and vandalised Royal Air Force planes. I entirely respect those who wish to protest, raise arguments and use freedom of speech, but let me be entirely clear: vandalising and attacking RAF planes is not the way to do that. Indeed, it poses a direct threat to our national security. That—and for many other reasons that you will appreciate I may not be able to go into in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the reason the Home Secretary has taken that decision. When the debate on proscription comes forward, as it will in coming days, I hope the hon. Lady will be able to contribute to that debate and further understand why the decision was taken by the Home Secretary.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the right hon. Member that this is not a protest group, but people who have undertaken severe criminal damage to military assets and who are increasingly using violence as part of their modus operandi. The decision by the Home Secretary has not been taken lightly, and it reflects the seriousness of the intent of that organisation. I welcome free speech and I welcome debate and challenge, but vandalising RAF jets is not free speech; it is criminal damage. That intervention on a military base is, as I said in my statement, not only epically stupid, but a threat to our national security, and the Home Secretary was right to proscribe the group.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for her words and for her service. The comments that were made at the weekend about our serving military personnel are outrageous, and I notice that there is not a single Reform MP here for this statement. Let me be absolutely clear: I believe that all parties present in the Chamber today back our forces. We do not take to Twitter to mock them. We respect service on a cross-party basis. We do not belittle senior officers based on their gender or experience. We need to be better than that. Just as we ask our armed forces to address cultural concerns, we need to be alive to that in our politics as well, and to call out misogyny wherever it rears its ugly head. Let us send a united message from all the parties present today that we back our armed forces, that we want to see a change in culture in our armed forces, and that we value the contribution of everyone who serves, especially those brave women who have done so much to secure our national security in recent years.

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Military Base Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the local community around Brize Norton, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss the details of what occurred from our point of view and the measures that can be put in place. The initial actions taken by the Defence Secretary have identified a number of immediate steps that we are taking to further secure the base, but I would be happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about that further. The hon. Gentleman is right that much of our armed forces estate and our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded for far too long, which is precisely the reason that I welcome the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. Our armed forces are brilliant, and it is time they had first-class facilities.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising this issue, and for presenting his argument in the way that he did. We have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, so he will know that I take responsibility for making sure that we make the correct decisions on ARAP. When I was on the Opposition Front Bench, where the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is now sitting, I raised concerns about the functioning of the ARAP scheme. In office, we have made changes to the scheme to make sure that it functions better, which I will come to. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned communications, and I believe the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) quoted the Secretary of State’s comments on the Triples review, but I will address the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the first instance. I very much appreciate the right hon. Member’s advocacy for the individual involved, and his passion for Afghan resettlement in general. He is absolutely right to say that we owe an obligation to the people who served alongside UK forces. What we have done with the ARAP scheme is implement as a nation, under the last Government and this one, probably the most generous Afghan relocation scheme of any of the allies that served in Afghanistan, and we have drawn a set of eligibility criteria that—with the exception of the Triples, which I will come to in a moment—have broadly remained the same under this Government and the preceding Government. [ Official Report , 11 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 11WC.] (Correction) I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about elements of that, which I will seek to address. As a former Minister, he will know that I will not be able to address the individual circumstances of the case without permission, so I will make some more general remarks in respect of that individual case. However, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that we have met previously on this matter, and I very much understand and appreciate his ongoing engagement. I have to be honest with him and say that when he and I first spoke about this case and I was briefed on it, I too was surprised by the decision that was made. That is why I undertook to take it back to the Department and to check on the eligibility of the case, which I did. Having done that, I am confident that the officials have followed the published criteria and applied them correctly to the evidence provided. The decision is appropriate and should stand. I should also be clear that there are no plans to ask to expand the criteria, which were implemented by the previous Government. I do, however, recognise the context of this particular matter, and I am happy to take up the right hon. Gentleman’s challenge to see whether exceptional routes may be available. I do not want to give him false hope—I am not certain there will be such a route—but having spoken to him previously about this, I know the seriousness of the matter he raises, and I am happy to see whether we could look at additional opportunities to provide support in this case. When it comes to the published criteria for ARAP, we must be absolutely clear about eligibility, and it is my job as the Minister responsible for Afghan resettlement to make sure that decisions are made correctly against the published eligibility criteria. Where decisions have been made, an individual has access to a review, and where there is a concern over an individual’s security while that review is ongoing—especially circumstances in which the life and safety of that individual are threatened—there is the ability to request an expedited decision.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I hope the hon. Lady does not mind.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy · Hansard source

  More

  First, I put on record that we have exceptional civil servants working in this area who take the decisions very seriously and make those decisions in full consciousness of their consequences. I am absolutely convinced that we have a good team working on this. On the point the hon. Member raises, we are making decisions against the published criteria, and it is right to do so. We know that amendments to the published criteria change the eligibility in respect of past cases. We also know that at the moment we have the most generous Afghan resettlement scheme. We have resettled 34,000 eligible persons in the United Kingdom under ARAP and the associated Afghan resettlement schemes, which is more than many of our allies. It is right that we make those decisions against the published criteria, and that we look carefully at them. That is why I undertook to do so in this case, and I have done so. There is a real challenge, and I entirely understand it. As someone who has advocated for Afghans in my own Plymouth constituency who fell outside the published criteria, which were set in place by the last Government and that we have followed, I have often argued that we should look again at this obligation. I am entirely aware that the majority of my efforts on this have centred on the Triples, who I will come on to, and whether those decisions were made correctly. I will give the House an update on that in a moment. I want to make sure that decisions are correct according to the published criteria. Those criteria are frequently challenged in the courts, and we have to uphold them to make sure that every decision is valid. Every case is assessed on a case-by-case basis, based on the information provided following a request for the information held not just by the Ministry of Defence but by other Government Departments and partners across Government, in order to make sure that the decision taken is as appropriate as possible. Individuals who get a decision that is not in their favour also have the ability to provide additional evidence and to have that decision reviewed.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is going with that argument. Under the criteria in the scheme we inherited from the previous Government, which we have continued, we have made the decision, with the exception of the Triples, to keep the eligibility decisions the same. [ Official Report , 11 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 12WC.] (Correction) Let me turn to the Triples, which the right hon. Gentleman raised. I believe that the quote of the Secretary of State when in opposition was in relation to the very concerning situation—I believe it was a concern to him and to me when in opposition—that decisions were made in respect of the Afghan special forces, the Triples, that were inconsistent with the evidence that was being provided. We backed and called for the Triples review, which was initiated by my predecessor in the previous Government. Phase 1 of that review has now completed and we have achieved an overturn rate of around 30%. A written ministerial statement on that was published— I think last month—should the right hon. Gentleman want to refer to the full details. In that work, we interrogated the data that was available. The record-keeping of that period was not good enough, as I have said from the Dispatch Box a number of times since taking office. As part of that trawl, we discovered information in relation to top-up payments, which previously had been excluded from the criteria because they did not constitute the relationship with the UK Government that would have created eligibility. Our belief is that the way those top-up payments were applied may now constitute a relationship that needs to be re-examined, so phase 2 of the Triples review, which will be the final phase of the review, is looking at top-up payments. It was right to do that, because there was a clear point. In the case raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am very happy to try to see what is available to support it. I feel very deeply that we need to honour our obligations to those people who served alongside our forces, from the Afghan translators and interpreters who live in the constituency I represent, to the people who fought, and in some cases died, alongside our forces. The ARAP scheme is a generous scheme, but it was not intended, at its point of initiation or now, to cover all Afghans who fought in that conflict over 20 years. It was designed to support those who we can evidence had a close connection to UK forces, often defined by a contractual or payment relationship—in blunt plain-English terms—where a sizeable commitment has been made. That draws a line for some individuals who were employed by the Afghan national army, the Afghan Government and elements of the security structures that the Afghan Government had at that time, for which eligibility is not created despite their role. The Taliban regime has created chaos, instability and terror through many communities in Afghanistan since our departure. That is why, as a Government, we are trying to accelerate and deliver the Afghan scheme. The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned communications. That is entirely right. It is something I have been raising since becoming a Minister. We will introduce, from the autumn, a new series of communications designed to help people understand where their application is in the process. The new performance indicators will kick in from September time—roughly in the autumn—and that will seek to help people to understand where they are in the process. There is concern around understanding for how long a case will be dealt with. I also hope the performance indicators will have time-bound targets to help people be able to rate the performance of the Ministry of Defence. Certainly, when the Defence Secretary published his statement on the Afghan resettlement scheme at the end of last year, he made the case that we need to complete our obligation and bring the schemes to a close, and it is our objective to do so.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to continue the conversation with the right hon. Gentleman in the days ahead. Question put and agreed to.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the right hon. Gentleman has experience as a Minister who covered this area in the last Government. He is right that we need to reflect on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, we need to make sure that we are looking after our whole force. It is true that there are issues that we believe are not being addressed because there is not a sufficient spotlight being shone on them. It is for that reason that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill provides for a reporting function not to Ministers or the Chief of the Defence Staff, but to Parliament. Indeed, I believe the Defence Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is likely to receive those reports. It is precisely for those reasons that I believe the commissioner may be able to offer a view as to how the system they oversee will be able not only to protect victims and perpetrators, and seek justice with perpetrators, but deal with people who may be falsely accused. Largely, I expect general service welfare matters to be the predominant piece of activity for the commissioner, rather than necessarily looking at individual aspects of abuse or misbehaviour for which there is already a legal system within defence that can address some of those. As a whole, however, I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. In addition to the amendment that we have tabled in lieu, the Government have also committed in the other place to updating their current Raising a Concern policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under the policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. That will include provisions related to anonymity and confidentiality, and ensure that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to the raising of that concern. Further, the Government will conduct a thorough communications campaign to ensure that members of our armed forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how to access their office, how it interacts with existing policy protections and policy, the type of issues that can be raised, and how they will be dealt with. Taken together, our Government amendment and the additional commitments that I have outlined today and that Lord Coaker outlined to the House of Lords will establish genuine protections for people wishing to raise concerns anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their family members in a way that we cannot envisage would be achieved by Lords amendments 2 and 3 on their own. This Bill is a critical step in renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve. For the first time, we are providing them and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised in due course by Parliament, and in turn for the Government—this Government and any Government in the future—to be held to account. That can only be a positive thing. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion. I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill. However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further. However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf. The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House. Lords amendment 1 agreed to. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate in the time that we have left. On behalf of the Government, I thank all Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is widespread support for the principle of introducing an Armed Forces Commissioner, for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit to include relevant family members, and for us to get on and implement the Bill well, which I can assure the shadow Minister is our intention. I will refer to a number of the points that have been raised in today’s debate. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) that we need to ensure that the system works. The Bill in front of us is not designed to adjust the procedures, policies or process of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces as it transitions into the Armed Forces Commissioner’s Office, but it is designed to expand the powers of SCOAF. The current Service Complaints Ombudsman has been asking for that in her annual reports, and we have provided an expanded remit in the Bill in front of us. I share my hon. Friend’s determination to see an improved system, and I place on record my thanks to Mariette Hughes, the current Service Complaints Ombudsman, for her work in reducing the backlog of service complaints that were not being addressed. In Committee we heard about the progress that has been made, which was very welcome, and I am certain that that improvement will be embedded in the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner as well. The shadow Minister raised the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, and we owe our veterans from Operation Banner a huge debt of gratitude. Their professionalism and sacrifice saved lives in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, and helped bring about peace. There will be no rewriting of history. However, the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help those veterans. Over and over again, it was found to be unlawful by the UK courts, and any incoming Government at the last general election would have had to repeal and replace that unlawful legislation—it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. We must ensure that the legacy mechanisms in place are fair, lawful and proportionate, and we are working hard to ensure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and we can minimise the impact on this unique group of veterans. As we replace the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act, we will prioritise and strengthen the protections to ensure the dignity and respect of veterans, and I know that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will look forward to further discussions on this issue should the Petitions Committee grant a debate.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend’s interventions, and he need not worry, because I will not be sending him a bill for any of the kit that he might have misplaced over the years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this House is at its best when we focus not on the party politics that may give us cause to divide ourselves, but on support for our armed forces personnel, their families and the missions that we ask them to undertake to keep our nation safe. It is precisely for that reason that I hope colleagues across the House will take note of what he has said and present a united House in relation to these amendments. For the first time, we are providing our armed forces and their family members with a genuinely independent champion, a direct point of contact for them to raise welfare matters and to have those issues scrutinised by Parliament and, in turn, for the Government to be held to account. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to put aside party politics and to put our troops first, so that we can move closer to delivering this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right that the entire Bill, to an extent, is about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone in our armed forces and their relevant family members to raise a concern outside the chain of command. Effectively, that is the very heart and soul of what we propose in this legislation. I will come to the amendment in lieu in a moment, but certainly, with that, we seek to strengthen the provisions that Baroness Goldie’s amendments propose. We agree that there is an issue that needs to be addressed within our armed forces and we recognise that there are behaviours that are unacceptable. The Ministry of Defence’s Raising our Standards work, which the Minister for Veterans and People leads on, is an important part of providing an opportunity for everyone who serves to raise those concerns and have confidence that they can do so within the chain of command, but where they feel unable to do so, there will be a route available to them through the Armed Forces Commissioner to raise those concerns. Equally, as I just mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), this is about the ability of family members, who may feel less constrained by the chain of command or the structure of the armed forces, to do so on behalf of their family unit. I entirely understand the purpose of the amendments and I agree with their spirit, but we seek to strengthen them in the amendment in lieu. One of the key parts of the amendments was to ensure that anyone who raises a concern will have their identity protected. It worth noting that the Armed Forces Commissioner will be bound by the data protection legislation that this House has passed, meaning that the personal information and details provided by anyone who contacts the commissioner will be subject to stringent controls. On the specifics of the word “whistleblower”, we all understand what we mean when we hear that term, and it is important that we provide opportunities for those within our services to raise concerns. However, it is not completely straightforward from a legal point of view how that is enacted in this piece of legislation. Although there is some limited precedent for the use of the term, there is no single meaning and it requires additional context to explain what it means in each case. That means some technical changes are required to Baroness Goldie’s amendment to make it operable within the Bill, which is why we seek to strengthen it. The amendments seek to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but importantly, no additional protections are created because the commissioner can already investigate anything that is contained in the amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie. However, it is a useful opportunity for us to restate the importance of being able to raise concerns, especially about the abuse that happens in our armed forces, and to state on the record from the Dispatch Box that there is no place for any of that abuse in our armed forces and that not only is the Ministry of Defence taking steps to tackle it but there are protections in the Bill to enable that. None the less, I understand the intention behind the amendments, which is to ensure that people feel better able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions or their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit behind that. A united voice from this House, saying that we will not tolerate unacceptable behaviours, will send a strong message to those watching this debate—both perpetrators and complainants—that the zero tolerance approach we want for the armed forces is one that we will all get behind.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Implementing the armed forces covenant is something that this Government feel strongly about. That is why we are bringing forward legislation that will implement the armed forces covenant fully into law on a national basis, so that it grips not just on local authorities but on central Government. There is real merit in implementing the armed forces covenant at a local level. There are pockets of best practice nationwide—not just in military cities like Plymouth, which I represent, but across the country. It can also be of benefit to councils and communities, so I would encourage him to continue his campaign to ensure that the covenant is properly implemented. For too long we have heard stories of bad experiences that have gone unchallenged, some resulting in tragedy. The Defence Secretary has made it clear from his first day in the Department that there will be zero tolerance for this type of behaviour. That is why we are acting, and that is why I hope that the whole House will support this vital endeavour and the amendments to the Bill. I invite the House to agree to Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, which were made by the Government in response to suggestions made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They have the effect of fully implementing the Committee’s recommendations to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the Bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure.