Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 9
192Ayes
338Noes
Defeated · majority 146 · Government won116 did not vote
646 Members · Aye 192 · No 338 · DNV 116 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
The House of Commons voted on Amendment 9 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill during its Report Stage on 21 January 2025. The amendment sought to give the Armed Forces Commissioner stronger investigatory powers and enhanced access to information from military authorities. The amendment was defeated by 338 votes to 192. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is designed to replace the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman with a more powerful independent advocate for service personnel and their families. Amendment 9 would have extended the Commissioner's ability to compel access to information and conduct more robust investigations into military welfare matters. Its defeat means the Commissioner will operate within the limits set by the Government's original Bill, without the additional investigatory tools that opposition parties argued were necessary for the role to be genuinely effective and independent. The vote divided sharply along party lines, with all Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voting against, and virtually all opposition parties, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and Reform UK, voting in favour. The result reflected the Government's preference to maintain tighter boundaries on the Commissioner's authority, with Labour MPs arguing that independence is better protected through commissioner discretion than through legislated mandates. Several other amendments to the Bill were also defeated on the same day, including Amendment 10 and Amendment 2, suggesting a consistent pattern of the Government resisting changes to the Bill's original scope.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to clarify how the Armed Forces Commissioner will coordinate with the National, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioners and related bodies within one year of the Act passing.
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a formal published coordination plan, trusting the government to manage inter-body relationships without a statutory requirement.
Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.
Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
303
58
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
97
0
19
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
32
10
Independent
—
5
4
5
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
5
0
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
—
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
1
0
0
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
—
1
0
0
Your Party
—
0
1
0
Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed
The Bill is welcome but must go further with 11 amendments covering recruits, family members, independence, resourcing, parliamentary scrutiny, and minority groups to ensure meaningful change for armed forces community.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,029 words) →
Chair of Defence Committee; seeks clarification on how committee scrutiny should exceed current process and assurance that implementation planning accommodates possibility of rejecting a commissioner candidate.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (870 words) →
Veterans commissioners should be placed on statutory footing like the Armed Forces Commissioner to give them genuine independence and resources; supports new clause 2.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,268 words) →
Amendments well-intentioned but unnecessary; public sector equality duty already applies; prescriptive lists risk omitting groups like disabled personnel; Bill already addresses concerns.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (852 words) →
Bill should pass unamended; overly prescriptive amendments risk compromising commissioner independence and flexibility; implementation timescales should not be artificial; devolved administrations should engage pragmatically.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,610 words) →
Amendments 9 and 10 unnecessary and risk narrowing focus; commissioner must have independence to determine priorities; trust the legislation's expansive remit.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,049 words) →
New clause 1 would overwhelm office with 150,000 applicants; new clause 2 narrows focus appropriately to serving personnel; amendments risk undermining commissioner's core mission.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,472 words) →
Supports amendment 8 on independence from chain of command; concerned Bill could expand unchecked like German model; welfare responsibility belongs to chain of command.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (991 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0