Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Commons Amendment

16:09:00

Motion A

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2 and 3 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A in lieu.

2A: Page 5, line 19, at end insert— “(1A) Subsection (1B) applies if the investigation was carried out wholly or partly in response to a request made by an individual. (1B) A report under subsection (1) must not include information which identifies the individual or enables them to be identified, except with their consent.”

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I thank all Members, including His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberals and others, for their careful and considered scrutiny of this landmark Bill. As we have all agreed, it is an important Bill, one that marks a significant step change for our Armed Forces and their families and delivers on a commitment upon which this Government were elected. At the consideration of Lords Amendments in the other place last week, the minor and technical government amendments were all agreed to. These were the amendments to fully implement the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure, and the amendment that was consequential on Clause 3. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also raised concerns about anonymity. We listened carefully to the points she raised and brought forward amendments to address these concerns. I shall return to that later. This leaves only the matters of whistleblowing and anonymity, which are the issues before us today. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, were put to a vote in the other place and were both disagreed to. However, the Government had taken on board the important debates we had in your Lordships’ Chamber and proposed a significant amendment in lieu, to which the Commons agreed. This amendment picked up on the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments, and actually went further than her proposals in delivering concrete legal protections. However, noble Lords will be aware that an amendment to the Government’s Motion today has been tabled, offering amendments in lieu in place of the Commons amendment in lieu. Let me first offer some explanation on why the other place disagreed with the original Lords amendments on whistleblowing before addressing the specifics of the amendments now before us. While the amendments proposed by your Lordships chime with the spirit of the Bill, the contents did not offer any additional legal protections for anyone coming forward to the commissioner. This entire Bill is already designed to create a trusted and independent route for service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare matters that they may personally be affected by or that they observe to affect others. The commissioner—and this is really important—can already investigate any general service welfare matters they choose, and anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. The commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the MoD, and reports directly to Parliament. The commissioner will be bound by data protection legislation, meaning that, for anyone who contacts the commissioner, the personal information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections. We all want to protect women from unacceptable behaviours. The debate between us is just about the best way of doing that. In her amendment and speech on Report, the noble Baroness raised the central issue of anonymity for a person raising a concern with the commissioner and the role this may have in building trust and confidence for people to come forward. We heard this and we agreed that this was a concrete legal protection that would add to the Bill. The government amendment—tabled and agreed to in the other place—is therefore designed to address anonymity protections for all those who raise welfare concerns to the commissioner. It has the effect of ensuring that their identity is protected in all the commissioner’s reports, should they wish. It is often said that the Government do not listen to what the Opposition say. In this aspect of this important debate, we have listened but we have also acted. As I set out on Report, this amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments, which, taken together, will further bolster trust and confidence in the commissioner. I will restate them now. The Government will update their current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act for the military. This update will ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner, including provisions relating to anonymity, confidentiality and protection from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern. The Government will also conduct a thorough communication campaign—another point raised by noble Lords—to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how this interacts with the existing protections and policy, as well as the types of issues that can be raised with them and how they can be dealt with. These specific concerns were raised in your Lordships’ Chamber, and we have acted on them.

16:15:00

The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, seeks to replace the government amendment protections with another amendment. It would create a two-tier or two-class system for how individuals who approach the commissioner will be treated. The Bill was designed to carry out the manifesto commitment to give a voice and point of contact for anyone subject to service law and their families, so that any matters affecting welfare in the Armed Forces, and the lives of the families of the Armed Forces, could be investigated by an independent and trustworthy figure. The noble Baroness’s amendment would splinter this ambition, creating a further group of persons from among those already able to approach the commissioner, who are defined in the amendment as whistleblowers.

We believe that the words “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” may make some people hesitate to come forward. The Cabinet Office guidance—which has informed government departments and was also followed under the previous Government, including by the MoD in developing its “raising a concern” policies—recognises that language can put people off coming forward. We all know that those words have strong connotations and links in the public subconsciousness to exposing large-scale fraud or deep-seated corruption. Encouraging this language may lead to some serving personnel and their families feeling nervous about coming forward, and it may make them less likely to think of this as an appropriate route to raise the welfare matters affecting their daily lives and well-being.

The noble Baroness may well refer in her speech to the fact that the term “whistleblower” is used elsewhere in the Armed Forces Act, as was pointed out in the other place. That is true, but it exists in that legislation only in the context of the service police. The provision that references whistleblowers allows the Secretary of State to replicate any relevant provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 on police whistleblowers. The whistle- blowing regime set out in the Police Reform Act 2002 is significant, with 11 separate sections setting out what whistleblowing means and how it works in that specific policing context.

Simply using the term “whistleblower” in the Bill does not import any meaning that may exist for it in different legislative contexts. Copying and pasting some of these provisions into the Bill does not replicate an entire whistleblowing regime or substantially change the powers of the commissioner to deal with a whistleblowing issue versus a general service welfare matter. We do not doubt that the noble Baroness, like every Member of your Lordships’ House, wants to build trust and confidence in the commissioner, but legislation is not a communications opportunity; it is the law and must be clear to those who have to interpret it.

Putting aside the terminology, I ask your Lordships to consider the provisions themselves and the new proposals contained in the amendments. I referred earlier to a two-tier system: the normal process of just going to the commissioner and the whistleblower route. If the amendment were passed, the whistleblower investigations proposed would have the same scope as the current investigations’ powers but none of the additional powers of investigation. That is because the noble Baroness’s proposed new Section 340IC is not linked to new Sections 340IA and 340IB in the Bill.

If passed, the consequence of that is if somebody goes to the commissioner under the whistleblowing route, it does not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. It does not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. It does not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations. It does not require reports to go to the Secretary of State, to be laid before Parliament. Indeed, the scope is narrower since it applies only to people subject to service law, so it does not apply to family members and cannot be about terms of service.

The commissioner would also need consent from the individual before starting an investigation constraining the commissioner’s independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure to withhold consent. The anonymity protections the Government brought forward would relate only to investigations under this section. This would remove the anonymity protections the Government are proposing to include. With no investigative powers, no parliamentary oversight, narrower scope and constraining the commissioner’s independence, why would anyone, including the commissioner, want to use this route?

Most importantly, the Bill is intended to provide a safe avenue for people to come forward with their concerns no matter how small or big they might seem to them at the time and for them to know they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and impowered to raise concerns.

We have therefore drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible. Through our communications campaigns and guidance, we will make it clear that anyone subject to service law, and their families, can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter. What could be clearer than that? Why introduce a separate, parallel system without the same investigatory powers? Creating a differentiation between whistleblowing about a general service welfare matter and simply approaching the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter adds a new level of complexity and confusion, which will make it harder, not easier, to navigate.

There is unanimity of opinion within your Lordships’ House that we need to do more to protect anyone who wishes to come forward with a concern to the new commissioner. The amendment that the Government have brought forward and the other matters we have said we will take forward mean that we have listened to your Lordships’ House and acted on what noble Lords have said. However well-intentioned, we have very serious concerns about the noble Baroness’s amendments. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

Leave out from “3” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A and do propose Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of Amendment 2A—

2B: Clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert— “(aa) to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, and”

2C: Clause 4, page 5, line 12, at end insert— “340IC Commissioner’s functions in relation to whistleblowing (1) The Commissioner may investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower of which the Commissioner becomes aware (whether because the whistleblower has contacted the Commissioner or for any other reason) but only if the whistleblower informs the Commissioner, before the beginning of the investigation, that he or she consents to an investigation taking place. (2) The Commissioner must, when carrying out an investigation under this section, take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower. (3) For the purposes of this section and section 365AA a person (“P”) is a “whistleblower” if— (a) P is subject to service law or is a relevant family member, (b) P raises a concern about a person who is subject to service law, (c) the concern raised by P relates to general service welfare matters (as defined by section 340IA(2)), and (d) the concern raised by P does not relate to the conditions of service of persons subject to service law. (4) After carrying out an investigation of a concern raised by a whistleblower under this section, the Commissioner may prepare a report setting out the Commissioner’s findings. (5) A report under subsection (4) must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent.””

My Lords, having dealt with the technicalities of process, I once again thank all noble Lords from across the House who supported my amendments to the Bill on Report, and I thank all those in the other place who also gave their support. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Official Opposition have approached it in a constructive manner: we have challenged the Government when necessary, but we have also sought to be supportive. In that vein, I have tabled my Amendments 2B and 2C, in lieu of the Government’s Amendment 2A made in the other place. In the debate on my initial amendments in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the amendments, “while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/25; col. 188.] Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just repeated that argument. I agree that the Bill provides a voice for Armed Forces personnel outside the chain of command and that is fundamental to the role of the commissioner, but this does not mean that my amendment is either unnecessary or irrelevant. All Governments go through a black cloud and search for a silver lining. I am handing the Government a silver lining on a plate, because with my amendments the Bill puts the Government and our Armed Forces personnel in a good place. Let me explain why. As I argued on Report, and my right honourable friend Mark Francois argued in the other place, “whistleblowing” is a recognisable term. It is recognisable in law, in the Police Reform Act 2002 and in the Armed Forces Act 2006. Most importantly, it is recognisable by the thousands of Armed Forces personnel who know exactly what whistleblowing means and who would benefit from this enhancement. If Parliament has already deemed it appropriate to give the Service Complaints Commissioner a function to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers about the military police, how can the Government argue that their new Armed Forces commissioner should not have a similar function? This is a question of consistency and fairness. This is not a two-tier system, as the Minister was arguing. I am offering a Rolls-Royce version of what is already in the Bill. That is why I disagree with the Government in their Amendment 2A, which will place a duty on the commissioner to ensure that the reports do not contain any information which could be used to personally identify a person who requested that an investigation take place. This is a welcome first step. It is at least a tacit admission by the Government that the Bill as originally drafted did not go far enough in safeguarding individuals making a confidential disclosure. But it is just that: a first step. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It also does not accept the unique meaning of whistleblowing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so eloquently stressed on Report. I thank her especially for her support. I therefore propose a new amendment, Amendment 2C, as a reasonable compromise between what I have set out to do and what the Government have proposed. It seeks to insert a new clause which contains the same definition of “a whistleblower” as the original but with two important additions. First, in proposed new Clause 340IC(2) I have included a duty on the commissioner to “take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower” when the commissioner is investigating a whistleblowing concern relating to general service welfare matters. Secondly, in the spirit of constructive engagement, which I have endeavoured to reflect throughout the passage of the Bill, I have listened to the Government’s suggestions and included new subsections (4) and (5), which provide for the commissioner to produce a report once they have completed an investigation into a concern raised by a whistleblower, with a requirement that the report “must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent”. As noble Lords can see, this new amendment therefore includes both my and the Government’s proposals for whistleblowing. I hope that the Minister can see that I genuinely want this to operate in the most effective manner. I hope, perhaps in vain, that he can support this improved amendment. His remarks this afternoon indicate the contrary. I have taken on board his previous reservations and sought to allay them. Let us not forget how vital it is to improve the treatment of our service personnel. I have mentioned before the horrifying case of Jaysley Beck, who was sexually abused and tormented relentlessly before taking her own life. On Report, I referred to the BBC Wiltshire reports of the horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women. One of them was in the Navy, another was in the RAF and the third is still serving in the Army. Just last week, we saw the tragic case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan, who was found dead in his bedroom at Catterick Garrison in 2020. The inquest into his death heard that he was consistently degraded and undermined by his superiors, with a friend saying that bullying would be an “understatement”. Another friend told the inquest that communication is an issue and a failing—the system should have worked. The system has not been working. It is not working. We have an opportunity to do our bit to rectify this. I hope that the House agrees and supports Motion A1. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s response, but I wonder if she could help me to understand a point raised by the Minister. It appears from proposed new subsection (1) that if a whistleblower is involved with the commissioner, the whistleblower controls the investigation. The whistle- blower can stop any investigation by the commissioner, even if the commissioner has information from other sources. Does the noble Baroness think that that is a reasonable approach?

16:30:00

My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend’s Motion A, and I will be as brief as I can. The Bill, as my noble friend said, is a landmark step in the Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those women and men in our Armed Forces, and I happily re-declare my own interest in this, as I have done at each stage of the Bill’s proceedings. It is good to see a manifesto commitment making such good progress towards the statute book. I support the amendments in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the change in regulation-making power to define “relevant family members” from the negative to the affirmative procedure. We had some helpful and interesting discussions about that in Committee. This is not a Bill that is going to solve every problem that we have with the culture of our Armed Forces, but it does provide a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion, and it quite rightly extends to the UK as a whole. I will just add one word about the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3. As the House may be aware, the commission can already investigate, as my noble friend has said, any general welfare issue that it chooses. In effect, as the Minister said in another place only last week, the entire Bill is to an extent about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone to raise a matter outside the chain of command. The government amendment in lieu does, as I understand it, go further than the original Lords amendments and will ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. In a way, we are all on the same side on the purpose of this Bill, and I would be sorry if the House divided on it, even if an amendment is presented as an attractive Rolls-Royce. Finally, in the fast-changing world in which we find ourselves, with the very real threats that we now face, we are going to require a great deal of our Armed Forces, and I, for one, think this is the very least that they deserve with this Bill.

My Lords, having been in attendance for all the past stages of the Bill, I think there is no disagreement across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, on wanting to get the best out of the Bill in ensuring that our service men and women have a voice and an ability to raise complaints on issues that go wrong within our Armed Forces. I was on every single Armed Forces Bill in the other place for nearly 20 years, and I said on Report that this is yet another attempt to ensure that we have an open and transparent, but also effective, means by which members of the Armed Forces can raise serious concerns. Sadly, other attempts have failed. Some of this will need amending once the Armed Forces commissioner is in place. I support my noble friend’s Motion A. On the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, it is a little bit like the debate we had on Report. There is nothing in the Bill which stops an individual, family members or related parties raising a complaint with the commissioner. I would think it important to ensure that the commissioner, he or she, had the ability to look at those complaints that came forward. The Bill also gives powers to the commissioner to do thematic inquiries, not just individual complaints. I am sure that when he or she is conducting them, there will be a call for evidence and people will come forward in that process. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said about the key point being anonymity for individuals, who have to be protected from any idea that if things are raised there is going to be an effect on them or their career. However, I think that the existing processes outlined in the Bill protect that. I welcome what is put forward in terms of whistleblowing, and I accept that we can dance on the head of a pin about definitions around it, but, as I said on Report, the important thing will be to ensure that we get the information out to members of our Armed Forces that this system exists and can be used. When I started on this journey 20 years ago, there was huge resistance to any idea of anybody crossing the chain of command, so we have made progress. Sadly, I think that because of the scandals we have had, we have had to ensure that there is an ability to look at these things outside the chain of command. I do not feel that there is any need for the amendments as put forward, but I do not think we are far apart here. We just want to ensure that this Bill gives an opportunity for service men and women to raise concerns when they affect them or as wider thematic issues. Will this be the end of it? Will we have found of the Ark of the Covenant in terms of whether the system is perfect? I am not sure we will; I think we will have to amend it, and possibly the Armed Forces commissioner, whoever he or she is, will want to amend the process as it beds in.

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her amendment. I am not going to repeat the strong and powerful case that she made, but I want to pick up on a couple of issues. Whistleblowing and a complaints process are two different things—it is a point that I tried to make on Report. A coherent complaints process is exceedingly important, and it can rise to the level of commissioner, but whistleblowing is an opportunity to deal with things that are far more systemic and come, in a sense, from a different perspective from that of a complaint. That is why, if we look at financial services regulators or regulators in essence across the piece, we will find they all have both channels. They have a complaints channel for people who run into an issue where they have a really serious complaint that they want to raise, but they also have a whistleblowing channel so that where somebody comes across intelligence, has an awareness or sees something that they think should be attended to because it has much deeper implications, they use that whistleblowing channel to go to the investigative or regulatory body. To me, it is extraordinary to put in place a new Armed Forces commissioner, a clearly important and independent role, and not give that commissioner the tools which you would normally give anybody else picking up that kind of commissioner role so that, through the whistleblowing route, they can receive and reach for information. Without that information, it is very hard for him or her to function in that role. I think one of the reasons why this is not in the Bill and was not in the Bill from the start is that a change in culture and mindset is taking place. We are now seeing with many Bills coming through this House the issue of whistleblowing being raised, because the public have become aware every time there is a scandal that there have been people who have spoken out but who have not been heard, have been silenced and have suffered detriment, so now there is a search to put whistleblowing protection, almost as a standard norm, in Bill after Bill—I think it would be better to unify it in one place, but I am not going to make that argument today. An Armed Forces commissioner needs to receive a regular and steady flow of information to enable them to carry out the role that is intended. I think the establishment of a whistleblowing channel will create far more trust among service personnel, who quite frankly understand better than we do the limitations of complaints systems. When somebody enters a complaints system, they typically see themselves as raising a specific personal issue or one among friends which they want to be resolved. In a welfare case, it may well be a situation where housing repairs have not been carried out. It is a perfectly reliable and important channel, but whistleblowing touches something deeper and more fundamental and systemic. To have that channel running parallel is not exceptional; it is the norm. In fact, excluding it is the exception, so I ask the House to seriously consider this. As I said, if this Bill was being written six months from now, given the discussion there has been around these issues in Bill after Bill, it would automatically have been put in place. I do not want to slow this Bill down as it is important, but I do ask the Government to quickly draft something that they feel captures all these issues, with the legal expertise that they have, and not to lose this opportunity.

My Lords, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but the purpose of the Bill is to expand the remit of the service complaints ombudsman, who can only look at service complaints, to the commissioner who, as my noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out, can also look at thematic and systemic issues—so it is a complete expansion and change of the role. I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we are passing legislation here. The whistleblower amendment is not connected to new Section 340IB. There are two different tiers of somebody coming to the commissioner. There is the first tier, which gives the commissioner all the powers and advantages that noble Lords want: viewing premises, observing, power of entry—all the things laid out in 340IB. That is not in the amendment for the whistleblower. If we pass the whistleblowing amendment, the powers of entry and other powers would not be made available to the commissioner. That is why it becomes a two-tier system, and I suspect that, if noble Lords had the Bill in front of them, they would see exactly the point I am making. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his point. Let us say that somebody comes forward as a whistleblower, raising a hugely important thematic issue, and the commissioner says, “I am going to investigate that”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, pointed out, they cannot do it if the whistleblower says “No, I don’t want you to do it”, because it can be done only with the consent of the whistleblower.

My Lords, I understand the point the Minister is making but, in all the years when I have met whistleblowers, I have never met one who came forward intending to speak to somebody and then closed down the issue that they had just raised. Whistleblowers are looking for investigation. But, if he were to present something in lieu that corrected that very small lacuna in the language—three or four words, as far as I can see—I am sure that no one would object.

I say to the noble Baroness that we are legislating here, not on a wing and a prayer and not on the basis of what may happen or the fact that this has never happened. We are a legislature and we are trying to legislate for things that actually may happen.

16:45:00

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has much more expertise at the Bar than I have, since I am not a lawyer, but I can see a good point when I hear one. I put his question to the noble Baroness: if—this has never happened, we are told, but who knows?—a whistleblower comes forward and says something that is of massive thematic importance but then turns around and does not consent, if the amendment is agreed, the commissioner cannot investigate it. So control of the investigation is not with the commissioner; it is down to whether or not the whistleblower decides to come forward. That is an important consideration for your Lordships.

We are legislating. If the amendment is passed, we create a two-tier system and we have the other problem that I just mentioned with respect to consent. I have no hesitation in accepting the point that the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Stansgate and everyone else has made: we all want the best for the commissioner and we all want the awful examples of bullying, sexism, racism and all the other things that a small number have participated in to stop. That is not the issue. The issue before your Lordships’ House is whether we pass something that is legislatively sound and gives the commissioner the powers that we want, in a way that is consistent with good practice.

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate, not least the Minister, with his impassioned defence of the Government’s position. I shall try to deal with the individual points that have been raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked a simple question: does the whistleblower control the process? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, indicated, a whistleblower is indeed an individual, and implicit within that is the whistleblower’s right to withdraw consent if they become concerned. That is an inevitable consequence of an individual pursuing a complaint. What I am less clear about in that objection to the amendment is that, while at the moment an individual could complain to the Armed Forces commissioner under the terms of the Bill, I do not know what the commissioner would do if the individual suddenly turned round and said, “No, I’m very worried about what I’ve embarked upon. I want to stop”. It is true that the commissioner can look at thematic issues, and we expect that they will do so, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the drafting of the Bill that says the commissioner cannot look at something that an individual raises. Indeed, the Government’s objection to my amendment seems to be that there already exist facilities, processes and procedures that enable an individual to raise a concern. So I am not convinced that these objections are cogent. I accept that it is legitimate to ask the questions, but I do not accept that that is a justifiable reason for opposing the amendments that I have tabled. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said in effect that whistleblowing was covered by the Bill but did not address the point that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised: why, if it is so good and desirable, is it the word that dare not speak its name in the Bill? That is what is beyond me, to be honest. “Whistleblowing”, as we have previously discussed, is legitimate text and terminology in other legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made an interesting point: very wisely, he concedes that, once the Bill is being operated, there may have to be tweaks and it may have to be reviewed, because we may find that it is not working just as we intended. He made the distinction between thematic and individual. I understand that distinction but, as I have explained, there is nothing in the Bill as far as I can see that would stop an individual at the moment making a complaint under the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, again with cogent perspicacity, got to the heart of the matter. As she said, whistleblowing and complaints processes are different, so why would you not give the Armed Forces commissioner the tools to do what has to be done? She added that whistleblowing is a channel that—in her opinion, to which I am inclined to defer—would create more trust, and I think we all understand that more trust is certainly needed to reassure our Armed Forces personnel. I was struck by her observation that where we have got to in political thinking, and in parliamentary process, is that whistleblowing should almost be the norm, not the exception. In short, I reiterate that I am glad that this debate is neither polemical nor party political, because we all want to arrive at the same destination. Where we have got to is a difference of opinion on the legal semantics. However, I firmly believe that the amendments I have tabled would enhance the Bill and help the Armed Forces commissioner to do the job better. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

1|16:51|265|161|Division on Motion A1|Motion A1 agreed.||0|0