Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 10
Tuesday, 21 January 2025 · Division No. 88 · Commons
118 MPs did not vote
Voting Yes means
Support adding more specific prescriptions to the Bill about what the Armed Forces Commissioner must do, including areas like service housing welfare
Voting No means
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
What happened: 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.
Why it matters: 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 politics: 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.
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