Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 9
Tuesday, 21 January 2025 · Division No. 87 · Commons
116 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
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 means
Oppose mandating a formal published coordination plan, trusting the government to manage inter-body relationships without a statutory requirement.
What happened: 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.
Why it matters: 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 politics: 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.
How They Voted
Government position: No
What They Said in the Debate
Labour · North Durham
Amendments well-intentioned but unnecessary; public sector equality duty already applies; prescriptive lists risk omitting groups like disabled personnel; Bill already addresses concerns.
Voted No
Labour · Dunfermline and Dollar
Bill should pass unamended; overly prescriptive amendments risk compromising commissioner independence and flexibility; implementation timescales should not be artificial; devolved administrations should engage pragmatically.
Voted No
Labour · Burton and Uttoxeter
Amendments 9 and 10 unnecessary and risk narrowing focus; commissioner must have independence to determine priorities; trust the legislation's expansive remit.
Voted No
Labour · Leyton and Wanstead
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.
Voted No
Labour · Slough
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.
Voted No
Conservative · Spelthorne
Supports amendment 8 on independence from chain of command; concerned Bill could expand unchecked like German model; welfare responsibility belongs to chain of command.
Voted Aye
Liberal Democrats · Epsom and Ewell
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.
Voted Aye
DUP · North Antrim
Veterans commissioners should be placed on statutory footing like the Armed Forces Commissioner to give them genuine independence and resources; supports new clause 2.
Voted Aye