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
Parliament voted on 21 January 2025 on Amendment 9 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, a Conservative proposal that would have required the new Commissioner to investigate how inheritance tax changes affect service personnel who die of natural causes while still serving. The amendment was defeated by 338 votes to 192. The vote concerned whether Parliament should write a specific investigative duty into the Bill, directing the Commissioner to examine the inheritance tax position of service families where a member dies of natural causes during service rather than as a direct result of it. Conservative MPs argued that existing inheritance tax exemptions cover only those killed on active service, leaving a gap for personnel who die of unrelated causes while still in uniform. The Government's position was that the Commissioner should remain free to choose which welfare matters to examine, and that legislating for specific topics would undermine that independence. The vote split almost entirely along party lines. All 303 Labour MPs and 32 Labour and Co-operative MPs voted against, with no Labour member voting for the amendment. All 97 voting Conservative MPs backed it, joined by all 63 Liberal Democrats, all 7 SNP members, all 5 Democratic Unionist Party members, all 4 Plaid Cymru members, all 4 Greens, and all 4 Reform UK members who voted. Five independents voted for and four against. The breadth of the cross-party opposition to the Government position was notable, though not sufficient to overturn the Labour majority.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the Armed Forces Commissioner to investigate the impact of inheritance tax on service families where personnel die of natural causes while still serving, ensuring they are not disadvantaged by recent tax changes.
Voting No meant
Oppose predetermining the Commissioner's investigative agenda through legislation, arguing the Commissioner should independently decide which welfare matters to examine, and that existing inheritance tax exemptions already protect service families.
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
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
32
10
Independent
—
6
4
4
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
Your Party
—
0
1
1
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
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