Division · No. 209Tuesday, 3 June 2025Commons Defence and Foreign Affairs

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill: Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3

329
Ayes
101
Noes
Passed · Government won
216 did not vote
Analysis
Commons

**What happened:** The House of Commons voted on 3 June 2025 to pass a government compromise amendment, labelled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3, to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. The amendment passed by 329 votes to 101. This followed two earlier votes the same day in which the Commons rejected Lords Amendments 2 and 3 outright, before substituting its own alternative wording in their place. **Why it matters:** The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill creates a new independent officeholder tasked with supporting the welfare of service personnel and their families. Lords Amendments 2 and 3 would have shaped the Commissioner's role and powers in ways the government considered either too broad or structurally inappropriate. By passing its own amendment in lieu, the government advanced a version of the Commissioner's remit that it regards as workable, while making a concession to the Lords' underlying concerns rather than simply rejecting them outright. The practical effect is that the legislation continues toward enactment in a form the government controls, affecting hundreds of thousands of serving personnel and their dependants who will interact with the Commissioner's office. **The politics:** The vote divided largely along government and opposition lines. All 317 Labour and Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted supported the government's position, joined by the Democratic Unionist Party's five MPs and all four Green MPs. The 96 Conservatives who voted were unanimous in opposition, joined by six Reform UK members, one Traditional Unionist Voice MP and one Ulster Unionist. The vote is part of a ping-pong sequence (the process by which Commons and Lords exchange amendments until both agree), with a related division in early July 2025 showing the exchanges continued, suggesting the Lords did not immediately accept the government's substituted wording.

Voting Aye meant
Support the government's revised amendment, which strengthens the original Lords changes while establishing the Armed Forces Commissioner on a firmer statutory footing
Voting No meant
Prefer the original Lords amendments as passed, or oppose the overall approach to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
§ 01Who voted how.430 voting members · 216 absent
Aye328No105DID NOT VOTE · 216

430 voting MPs. Each dot is one vote; left-to-right by party. Grey dots in the centre are the 216 who did not vote.

Aye
No
Absent
Labour PartyWhipped Aye
289
0
73
Conservative and Unionist PartyWhipped No
0
96
20
Liberal Democrats
0
0
72
Labour and Co-operative PartyWhipped Aye
28
0
14
Independent
2
1
10
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UKWhipped No
0
6
2
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist PartyWhipped Aye
5
0
Green Party of England and WalesWhipped Aye
4
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
0
1
Ulster Unionist Party
0
1
Your Party
0
0
1
§ 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_vote_recorded · 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