A divisionDivision No. 208 · Tuesday, 3 June 2025· Commons· Defence and Foreign Affairs

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3

315Ayes
184Noes
Carried · majority 131 · Government won
147 did not vote
Aye316No186DID NOT VOTE · 147

646 Members · Aye 315 · No 184 · DNV 147 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

The House of Commons voted on 3 June 2025 to reject Lords Amendment 3 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, a measure passed by the House of Lords that would have altered the scope or powers of the proposed new Armed Forces Commissioner. The motion to disagree with the Lords passed by 315 votes to 184, meaning the government's preferred version of the Bill was maintained at this stage. The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill creates a new independent post to oversee the welfare and service conditions of military personnel and their families, replacing the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman. The precise powers and independence of that commissioner are central to how effectively the role can scrutinise the armed forces and advocate for those serving. By rejecting Lords Amendment 3, the Commons kept the commissioner's remit and authority within the boundaries the government had set, rather than the expanded or differently structured version the Lords preferred. A companion vote on the same day also rejected Lords Amendment 2, and the government separately passed an amendment in lieu, suggesting a partial compromise was offered to address Lords concerns without accepting their exact wording. The vote divided cleanly along party lines, with all 315 Ayes coming from Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs, while the 184 Noes were drawn from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Reform UK, the DUP, the SNP, the Greens, and Plaid Cymru. There were no notable rebels on either side. The vote is part of a prolonged back-and-forth between the two chambers, known as parliamentary ping-pong, with a further vote recorded in July 2025 showing the disagreement continuing before eventual resolution. The government's simultaneous offer of an amendment in lieu indicates it was seeking to find common ground with the Lords on substance, while declining to accept the Lords' specific drafting.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's position: reject the Lords amendment and proceed with the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill as the government intended, establishing the commissioner to handle service welfare complaints
Voting No meant
Support retaining the Lords amendment, preferring the Lords' modified version of the Bill over the government's original approach
§ 01Who voted how.499 voting Members · 147 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 Aye
285
0
76
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
96
20
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
65
7
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
30
0
12
Independent
1
3
9
Scottish National Party
Whipped No
0
4
5
Reform UK
Whipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
5
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped No
0
4
0
Plaid Cymru
0
1
3
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
0
Your Party
0
0
1

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.7 principal speakers
Luke PollardSupportivePlymouth Sutton and Devonport
Government Armed Forces Minister supporting the Bill and defending the government amendment in lieu on whistleblowing as sufficient, arguing it goes further than Opposition amendments by protecting anonymity in commissioner reports while the commissioner already has powers to investigate any service welfare matter.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (5,109 words)
Mark FrancoisOpposedRayleigh and Wickford
Shadow Armed Forces Minister opposing the government's rejection of Lords amendments 2 and 3, arguing that a clear statutory whistleblowing function is essential to give service personnel confidence to come forward with concerns about misconduct and wrongdoing.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (2,013 words)
Helen MaguireOpposedEpsom and Ewell
Liberal Democrat spokesperson urging rejection of the government motion, arguing that whistleblowing and complaint processes serve different purposes and that statutory whistleblower protections are necessary to surface systemic failures in the armed forces.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (643 words)
Tanmanjeet Singh DhesiSupportiveSlough
Defence Committee Chair supporting Lords amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6 and welcoming the government's amendment in lieu on anonymity protections as essential for fostering trust within the armed forces.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (367 words)
Michelle ScroghamSupportiveBarrow and Furness
Labour backbencher supporting the Bill as a means to prevent tragic incidents like the death of Jaysley Beck, emphasising that family members need powers to raise welfare concerns.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (75 words)
Calvin BaileySupportiveLeyton and Wanstead
Labour backbencher supporting the government amendment in lieu, arguing that practical implementation and building trust matter more than specific legislative language and citing historical military disasters caused by unreported concerns.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (629 words)
Dr Andrew MurrisonQuestioningSouth West Wiltshire
Conservative questioning whether sufficient support exists for those about whom complaints are made, given rising service complaints and potential for unfounded allegations to cause distress.Conservative · Voted no · Read full speech (167 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