Division · No. 87Tuesday, 21 January 2025Commons Defence and Foreign Affairs

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Report Stage: Amendment 9

192
Ayes
338
Noes
Defeated · Government won
116 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on Amendment 9 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill during its Report Stage on 21 January 2025. The amendment sought to give the Armed Forces Commissioner stronger investigatory powers and enhanced access to information from military authorities. The amendment was defeated by 338 votes to 192. **Why it matters:** The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill is designed to replace the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman with a more powerful independent advocate for service personnel and their families. Amendment 9 would have extended the Commissioner's ability to compel access to information and conduct more robust investigations into military welfare matters. Its defeat means the Commissioner will operate within the limits set by the Government's original Bill, without the additional investigatory tools that opposition parties argued were necessary for the role to be genuinely effective and independent. **The politics:** The vote divided sharply along party lines, with all Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs voting against, and virtually all opposition parties, including Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens, and Reform UK, voting in favour. The result reflected the Government's preference to maintain tighter boundaries on the Commissioner's authority, with Labour MPs arguing that independence is better protected through commissioner discretion than through legislated mandates. Several other amendments to the Bill were also defeated on the same day, including Amendment 10 and Amendment 2, suggesting a consistent pattern of the Government resisting changes to the Bill's original scope.

Voting Aye meant
Support requiring the government to clarify how the Armed Forces Commissioner will coordinate with the National, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioners and related bodies within one year of the Act passing.
Voting No meant
Oppose mandating a formal published coordination plan, trusting the government to manage inter-body relationships without a statutory requirement.
§ 01Who voted how.530 voting members · 116 absent
Aye193No340DID NOT VOTE · 116

530 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 116 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped No
0
304
58
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
97
0
19
Liberal DemocratsWhipped Aye
63
0
9
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped No
0
32
10
Independent
6
3
5
Scottish National PartyWhipped Aye
7
0
2
Reform UKWhipped Aye
4
0
3
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid CymruWhipped Aye
4
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
Your Party
0
1
§ 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