Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.

I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.

Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.

Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.

The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.

A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.

My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.

In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.

There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.

However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.

My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.

Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:

“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.

Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.

There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?

My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.

Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.

However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say in answer to the specific question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate that, yes, the regulations apply to wherever anyone serves. I thank him for raising that issue and allowing me to clarify that point.

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I wish to read a particular thing. I thank him for his question and for his work with the reserves. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work he does with respect to them. The specific nature of the noble Lord’s question concerned what the term “Reserve Forces” includes. Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 inserted new Schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The meaning of “Reserve Forces” in this legislation is the same as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. It includes the volunteer reserve and the ex-regular reserve, but not individuals in the so-called recall reserve. That is the legislative position. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her general welcome of the regulations before us and the constructive way in which she engaged with them. I made a commitment on the whistleblower review. An interim review has been done; we are looking at that. We will invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, to the Ministry of Defence to have a look through where we have got to with the whistleblower review before we publish something, so that they can see where we are.

The intention of that, with respect to this issue and the noble Baroness’s question regarding the families, is for us to ensure that families who complain or bring forward concerns around service life under this provision or, indeed, in a more general sense are protected from feeling as though they will suffer detriment as a result of bringing something forward either under this instrument or more generally. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, which she asked specifically in reference to this point, and her more general point about whistleblowing.

Motion agreed.