Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 2
76Ayes
349Noes
Defeated · majority 273 · Government won222 did not vote
647 Members · Aye 76 · No 349 · DNV 222 · grey dots in centre are abstentions
Analysis
Commons
Commons
Parliament voted on 21 January 2025 on Amendment 2 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill at Report Stage. The amendment, tabled by Liberal Democrat MP Helen Maguire, would have required the new Armed Forces Commissioner to produce dedicated annual reports on challenges faced by specific minority groups within the armed forces and to establish mechanisms for community engagement. The amendment was defeated by 349 votes to 76. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill creates a new independent role replacing the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman, giving the Commissioner powers to investigate welfare matters affecting serving personnel and their families, enter Ministry of Defence premises unannounced, and report directly to Parliament. Amendment 2 would have added a further obligation to report specifically on minority groups and build structured community engagement into the Commissioner's work. Its defeat means the Commissioner will not be required by statute to produce those dedicated minority-focused reports, though the Commissioner will still be bound by the existing public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Liberal Democrats voted unanimously for the amendment, joined by all four Plaid Cymru MPs, all four Green Party MPs, and one Ulster Unionist. Labour MPs voted against in near-total unity, with 338 Labour and Labour Co-operative members voting no and none voting for. The Democratic Unionist Party voted against. Three independents supported the amendment while five voted against. The amendment sits alongside a series of related divisions on the same day, including Amendment 9 and Amendment 10, which were also defeated by similar margins.
Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the Armed Forces Commissioner to produce dedicated annual reports on minority groups within the armed forces, including provisions for structured community engagement.
Voting No meant
Oppose prescribing specific minority groups in legislation, preferring the Commissioner to exercise independent discretion within existing equality law obligations.
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
304
57
Conservative and Unionist Party
—
0
0
116
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
34
8
Independent
—
4
5
5
Scottish National Party
—
0
0
9
Reform UK
—
0
0
7
Sinn Féin
—
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
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
—
1
1
0
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
—
1
0
0
Restore Britain
—
0
0
1
Speaker
—
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
—
0
1
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 no · 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 no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (991 words) →
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0