“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 333 insert the following new clause—

‘333A Armed Forces Representative Body

In accordance with HM Government’s obligations under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, there is to be an Armed Forces Representative Body, existing outside the rank structure, but accountable to members and to Parliament in order to:

(a) represent personnel in matters of discipline: summary hearings, courts martial and other disciplinary hearings;

(b) aid personnel in the redress of individual grievances, and through the service complaints process;

(c) negotiate on behalf of personnel on matters relating to, but not limited to pay, terms and conditions and terms of enlistment;

(d) act as an advocate for general welfare of personnel during and immediately after their enlistment.

This Representative Body shall not have the ability to strike.’”—

This new clause would oblige the UK Government to legislate for the creation of an Armed Forces Representative Body similar to the Police Federation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19— Armed Forces Federation—

“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 333, insert the following new clauses—

‘333A  Armed Forces Federation

(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency, except for—

(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and

(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.

(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the armed forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.

(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.

(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.

333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or

(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—

(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;

(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;

(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and

(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.

(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces.’”

This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation.

Good morning to my colleagues in Committee. For a Bill that for some time tried to narrow in scope, the Armed Forces Bill has always had a way of getting us to debate some quite meaty and fundamental issues about who we want to be as a political state. If I say so myself, new clause 4, at least for the Opposition, brings together most of the threads that we have been talking about over the last month. Some on the Committee, including current and former members of the Defence Committee, will, I am sure, be bored stiff of my going on about an armed forces representative body, because I have been banging on about it before my private Member’s Bill in 2018 and since. I will try not to go over too many of the points that I made in that speech three years ago.

Since I became a member of the Defence Committee in 2017, I have lost count of the number of witnesses that we have had before us who have spoken about the difficulty in achieving institutional and organisational change in the Ministry of Defence, not just in personnel but in other areas such as procurement. The MOD has the fifth-largest budget in Whitehall, and if it were a city it would be bigger than Dundee or Brighton, so from my perspective, why on earth do we continue to create hideously complicated, bespoke personnel solutions when there exists a model of employer-employee relations that works for the rest of society? Is that not the very point of a whole-of-society approach to defence?

While I continue to be impressed by the knowledge, dedication and positivity of those who work in the military charity sector, I have no doubt that the multifarious nature of the sector is easily exploited by the Ministry of Defence to ensure that it keeps things exactly as it likes them. A proper representative body would be able to encompass the diversity of the armed forces family, and speak with one strong voice that Secretaries of State and the Government could not ignore when it was convenient.

Take the recent Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Although no one in the Opposition was likely to support it in principle, I understood the genuinely held beliefs of colleagues who wanted to see an end to repeated and vexatious prosecutions. The Ministry of Defence understood that also, and very astutely slipped in part 2 of the Bill, which put time limits on the ability of personnel to take action against the failings of the Ministry of Defence as an employer, cleverly packaging two unrelated issues together to ensure that the downside—the UK’s commitment to the international rule of law being watered down—was sweetened by giving more protection against actions by the very people that the Bill was supposed to protect.

I do not think that a proper representative body would have allowed that to pass, even if it supported the principles of the Bill, because it would have understood it to be the pig in the poke that it was. My final point is about the difference between the Scottish National party’s new clause 4 and our colleagues in the Labour party’s new clause 19 on an armed forces federation. I believe the principal difference between the two—I am happy to be corrected—is that new clause 19 seeks to create a federation that represents personnel in all matters except pay. From the conversations I have had with colleagues, I understand what provisions they would like to put in place to ensure that personnel are represented in pay negotiations, but I would like to hear more about why they think that the trade union-style model does not work in this specific instance.

In the week after the highest-ranking officer in the British Army for quite some time was convicted of a crime, the financial rewards for those in higher ranks come sharply into focus, with all the associated layers of class subtlety ingrained within the armed forces that this contains. We all know, even if we are afraid to say it, that there will not be many pongoes or matelots getting help to send their weans to private school, despite the fact that they undertake the most dangerous and demanding roles in the military.

I just thought that I would factually correct a couple of issues. The stuff around the education allowance is cross-ranks, so playing to class divisions is just a load of nonsense, as was the rest about leveraging in pieces to another Bill. Does my hon. Friend understand the causal link between civilian claims and part 2 of the Bill, leading to part 1 and criminal prosecutions, or is this just some sort of diatribe against the whole thing?

It seems as though the Minister has woken up rather grumpy this morning. I do not think we see the lower ranks being found guilty of manipulating their position to pay for their weans to go to private school.

They have.

We will move on.

The Minister is quite correct to say that a private school allowance or boarding school allowance is available across every rank, so we agree that that is factually correct. What is also factually correct is that it is almost exclusively utilised by commissioned officers rather than non-commissioned ranks.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the Minister of his own policy.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am not giving way any further. The Minister has had enough time; he has had plenty of time. I am afraid the Minister will just need to sit down and mute himself.

Negotiating pay and conditions was essential to the betterment of working-class people in the shipbuilding and associated industries that many of my forebears served in. I cannot imagine why that would not be the case for those members of my family and for my constituents serving in the armed forces today.

As with all the other new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I have tabled, I do not expect new clause 4 to pass, but I ask Members of the governing party to reflect on the fact that this may be the way things have always been done or part of the charm of serving in the armed forces, but young people today will increasingly ask themselves why working in the NHS comes with a framework of obligations that people can expect from their employers and a host of independent advice that they can rely on, whereas public service in the armed forces does not. No amount of effusive praise that we give them in the House of Commons makes up for that.

One Armed Forces Day or Week each year does not make up for the 365-days-a-year protection that would be created by an organisation that allowed them all to speak with one strong voice. That is why I think an armed forces representative body gets to the very heart of everything we have been talking about on this Bill Committee—to the heart of what kind of country we want to live in, and how the social contract between the Government, the people and their armed forces should work.

New clause 19 is designed to provide for the establishment of a federation for the armed forces. It owes much to the British Armed Forces Federation, which pioneered service representation. This issue has been close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, and I am loth to let an Armed Forces Bill go without raising it. It has been clear for some time that the armed forces need independent advice and representation. Witnesses that I have seen before this Committee have reinforced that point and we continue to hear shocking stories of abuse that takes place within units. We have also heard that continued delays discourage the use of the service complaints system, and of a concerning perception that someone’s career will be under threat if they complain persistently. Most members of the armed forces have also endured a real-terms pay cut for most of the last decade.

Given the renewed emphasis that Ministers appear to be placing on the value of people as assets to national defence, the time may be right to formalise representation and support for service personnel on issues such as welfare and pay. I want to stress that this federation would not be equivalent to a trade union for the armed forces. It would not conduct or condone any form of industrial action or insubordination within the armed forces. The federation would work with the Ministry of Defence to put in place a form of understanding that could deal with such issues. It would also recognise the importance of the chain of command. We can learn from positive forerunners such as the British Armed Forces Federation, which clearly reinforces the point that the chain of command is to be recognised, not overridden.

Although the proposal might be seen to be radical or dangerous by some, other nations, including the US and Australia, already have similar models embedded into existing military command structures. Given that Ministers in this Government have been so fond of looking to Australia for solutions, I hope that they will feel able to do so again. The nominally independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the service complaints ombudsman present a clear direction of travel towards independence.

Our armed forces give their lives for us. Ministers should seize this opportunity and also give them a voice.

I just want to add a couple of comments. Both these new clauses seem to worry the Government, and we have to wonder why. I think many personnel will wonder, “Why would the Government not wish to support these proposals?” A body that can speak for armed forces personnel on issues such as housing, terms and conditions, and pay would surely be a benefit. If personnel could raise these issues themselves, it could avoid situations such as those that we have seen recently through the National Audit Office report on the poor quality of single living accommodation.

It is important that we look at other bodies that work. The Police Federation would be a good example. In the Police Federation, individuals do not have the ability to strike and there is no threat to the chain of command. Despite us raising these issues time and again, the Government simply throw the same lazy arguments back at us. Those lazy arguments include, “We don’t want anything that undermines the chain of command.” This organisation would operate separately; it would be a body that personnel could go to without breaching the chain of command. All of us here understand the importance of that.

What arguments is the Minister going to come up with for opposing these new clauses? We have heard the same arguments time and again on strikes and chain of command, but we have said that these new clauses are no threat to those things. What can the Minister tell us other than that? Why would he not want to support personnel when they are looking for improvement? I do not think any of us would argue about what they want. They want decent housing, and decent terms and conditions; and we should not have any problem with that. I am really interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

What we have seen there is the granularity of the problem when it comes to debating these issues. The Scottish nationalist party Members have put forward two things that are fundamentally and factually inaccurate to support their argument—

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. Could you remind the Minister that the name of our party is the Scottish National party? He is using that other term deliberately and continues to do so.

The point of order has been noted; I have no doubt that the Minister is aware.

Colleagues have put forward two arguments that are factually not true. I just do not know how to respond when colleagues put forward points of view that they know to be untrue, which I correct on the record, yet they still advance them as though they are on some crusade for the benefit of the members of our armed forces. It really is sixth-form-debating-level behaviour and it means that I cannot respond to their points—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way, because my hon. Friends even corrected each other when one said that the continuity of education allowance was only for officers, which it is not, and then split between commissioned—

On a point of order, Mr Sunderland. The Minister is now trying to rewrite the record. I was very careful in what I said and I pointed out to him that I agreed 100% with what he said about the education allowance being available for all. However, I did say that it was almost exclusively used by officers, and that is the case.

It is not the case; it is about a 45%-55% split.

Will the Minister give way?

I would be delighted to give way.

I am concerned that the Minister is trying to rewrite the record, because all I said—I will remind myself of what I said—was that the most senior member of the armed forces, or of the Army at that point, was found guilty of misusing that fund. I never said anything about anybody not being able to access it.

No, the hon. Gentleman said that matelots and pongoes, the lower ranks, do not get to use the fund, which is factually incorrect. I am sorry; I do not mean to be obtuse with Members, but I have come into this role to serve members of the armed forces and I will not stand idly by if people make things up. If someone is going to debate these issues and bring forward things that are not true, which I am afraid largely emanate from the Scottish nationalist party, it will be very difficult to engage. However, I will address the other points.

The new clauses seek to create through primary legislation a representative body for the armed forces that is similar in many respects to the Police Federation. New clause 19 proposes that details of how such a federation would operate would be set out in regulations. Of course the Government understand that Members from all parties in the House wish to support our armed forces and protect their interests; that is at the heart of what we do and I believe our actions show that. However, we are not persuaded that there is a requirement or indeed a groundswell of support for a federation along the lines that have been suggested. The interests of our armed forces personnel are already represented through a range of mechanisms, not least the chain of command.

On matters of pay, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body provide annual recommendations on pay for the armed forces to the Prime Minister. Evidence is gathered from a number of sources, including the bodies commissioning their own independent analysis of pay comparability and taking written and oral evidence from the MOD and from service families federations, as well as spending a significant amount of time visiting military establishments within the UK and overseas.

Staying on the subject of pay, I should highlight that the X-Factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue.

Will the Minister give way?

I would be delighted to give way.

The Minister is making various claims about the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, and he is correct that it does great work in assessing the different effects of armed forces life, but it depends on Ministers and the Treasury accepting its recommendations. There was not a problem until 2010, but there has been since. How do ordinary members of the armed forces ensure that their pay issues are taken into account if the Government, who have ignored the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on numerous occasions since 2010, ignore those recommendations?

They have not ignored them. I sat on the last one, and I advocated for the pay of the armed forces. The Government have a clear role when it comes to pay across the public sector. They work hard to maintain the independence of these bodies, which are robust in challenging the Government to make sure our people are paid fairly. My right hon. Friend will have seen that the integrated review talks about a new way of operating, which will have to be reflected in a new reward and recognition scheme that looks at pay across the ranks, across the trades and across employment, to make sure that people are remunerated and recognised in line with what we are asking them to do. I understand the point he is making, but I do not accept that the Government have turned down these recommendations and are cracking on willy-nilly with pay.

I accept that the Minister might accept the pay review body’s recommendations, but he does not implement them. In 2013 the Government refused to reappoint Professor Alasdair Smith when he recommended things they did not like. There was not a problem until 2010, but since 2010, although the Conservative party says it stands for the armed forces, the Government have not implemented the pay review body’s recommendations. As we heard earlier, it would be okay not to have a representative body if the Government automatically accepted the pay review body’s recommendations, which I am proud that the last Labour Government did, but this Government have not done that.

Okay. Staying with the subject of pay, I should highlight that the X-factor addition to basic military pay, which is currently at 14.5%, recognises the special conditions of military life, including limits on the ability of service personnel to negotiate on this issue.

Importantly, the service complaints ombudsman provides independent and impartial scrutiny of the handling of service complaints made by members of the UK armed forces regarding any aspect of their service life. Improvements to the service complaints process are being progressed, and those do not require primary legislation, although there is one small measure in the Bill that seeks to change the legislation in certain circumstances.

I should also mention that there are provisions in the service complaints system and the service justice system for support to be provided to those who make complaints or allegations, and to those who are the subject of such actions. There is also legal aid for those facing charges in the service courts, and there are assisting officers at summary hearings.

The Committee can be assured that individuals are not left without support and assistance. On many other issues, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the Royal Naval Association, the Royal Air Forces Association, Veterans UK and a great many more regimental associations and groups throughout the country have regular access to the chain of command and Ministers to represent their members’ interests. As I mentioned, the chain of command remains an important route through which personnel can make representations about matters of interest and concern.

In addition, there are a range of other mechanisms for service personnel to have a voice on matters that concern them. The annual armed forces continuous attitude survey asks personnel about all aspects of their service life, and the results are used to inform the development of policy and to measure the impact of decisions affecting personnel, including major programmes and the armed forces covenant. The survey results are published. I should add that service personnel play an active role in the development of policies that affect them, and I see that every day in the work that goes on under the Chief of Defence People, Lieutenant General James Swift.

The Committee might not be aware that the Chiefs of Staff Committee, chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff, has a WO1, Mr Haughton, as its senior enlisted adviser, and he has a voice on all the matters that come before that committee. As a further example of our commitment to improving diversity, all Army officers at two-star and above have a reverse mentor, which supports diversity of thought across all areas of the service.

Finally, Ministers and senior officers hold regular town hall meetings for all staff—service and civilians—to brief them on developments and issues and provide an opportunity for everyone to ask questions about those developments.

I hope the Minister enjoys his virtual visit to Gower. Has that already taken place?

I have not been to Gower.

Sorry, I thought the Minister was paying a visit—a virtual one.

Anyway, in written evidence, Forward Assist said:

“Survivors need military leaders to both hear them and protect them when they make complaints. Sadly, in many cases the current system allows victims to remain hidden, silenced and unacknowledged whilst perpetrators are free to offend again.”

Does the Minister agree with that? What he is saying goes against that.

May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat that? I did not understand the question.

We had written evidence, and I wonder if the Minister agrees with it. He says that there is a sufficient system in place, but Forward Assist said:

“Survivors need military leaders to both hear them and protect them when they make complaints. Sadly, in many cases the current system allows victims to remain hidden, silenced and unacknowledged whilst perpetrators are free to offend again.”

That really concerns me.

Yes, it really concerns me. Forward Assist does a load of brilliant work in this area, and I have been clear on the record before that too many incidents of unacceptable behaviour go on. The female experience in the military is nowhere near where I want it to be. We are contributing to the Defence Sub-Committee inquiry on the female experience, and I will be the Minister answering that. That is all acknowledged. I think that is a separate matter from a representative body.

I hope that I have clearly explained the rationale for the Government’s approach and the provisions that do exist and that, following those assurances, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will agree to withdraw the new clause.

I am afraid that I will not withdraw the new clause but press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.