A divisionDivision No. 88 · Tuesday, 21 January 2025· Commons· Defence and Foreign Affairs

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 10

191Ayes
338Noes
Defeated · majority 147 · Government won
118 did not vote
Aye193No338DID NOT VOTE · 118

647 Members · Aye 191 · No 338 · DNV 118 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

On 21 January 2025, the House of Commons voted on Amendment 10 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill at Report Stage. The amendment sought to expand the remit of the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner to cover a broader range of welfare and family support issues for military personnel. The amendment was defeated by 338 votes to 191. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill creates a new independent role to advocate for serving military personnel and their families, replacing the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman with a more powerful office. Amendment 10 would have widened the scope of that role beyond the Government's intended boundaries. The defeat means the Commissioner's remit will remain as the Government defined it, more narrowly focused on specific military welfare matters rather than the broader range of issues the amendment's supporters argued were essential to adequately support service personnel and their families. Housing conditions, support for minority groups, and the treatment of reservists were among the welfare concerns raised during debate as potentially falling outside a more restricted remit. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs present voted against the amendment, providing the Government's majority. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, Reform UK, and most independents voted in favour. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote reflects a broader pattern on this Bill at Report Stage: opposition and smaller parties consistently pushed for a wider Commissioner remit while the Government held firm for a more focused role, insisting that independence and clear boundaries would make the new office more effective rather than less.

Voting Aye meant
Support adding more specific prescriptions to the Bill about what the Armed Forces Commissioner must do, including areas like service housing welfare
Voting No meant
Oppose over-prescribing the Commissioner's duties in primary legislation, arguing this risks compromising the Commissioner's independence and flexibility to adapt to evolving issues
§ 01Who voted how.529 voting Members · 118 absent

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
301
60
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
96
0
20
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
64
0
8
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

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Helen MaguireSupportiveEpsom 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.Liberal Democrats · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,029 words)
Tanmanjeet Singh DhesiQuestioningSlough
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)
Jim AllisterSupportiveNorth 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.DUP · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,268 words)
Luke AkehurstOpposedNorth Durham
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)
Graeme DownieOpposedDunfermline 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.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (1,610 words)
Jacob CollierOpposedBurton and Uttoxeter
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)
Calvin BaileyOpposedLeyton 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.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,472 words)
Lincoln JoppNeutralSpelthorne
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)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0