Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-2025: Lords amendments

The Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-25 was introduced in the House of Commons on 6 November 2024.

The bill would establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner and provide the Commissioner with powers to investigate general service welfare matters in the armed forces. The bill would abolish the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman and transfer its functions and responsibilities to the newly established Commissioner.

The government has published an explanatory note (PDF) alongside the bill. The Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard, said during committee stage that secondary legislation will be “published in draft form as the Bill progresses through Parliament”.

Committee stage took place on 10 and 12 December 2024. Report stage and third reading took place on 21 January 2025.

The Bill was amended in the House of Lords. Five amendments were tabled by the government and two amendments were tabled by Baroness Goldie (Cons) and were opposed by the government. The Bill completed its passage through the House of Lords on 12 May 2025.

The opposition amendments were opposed by the government on the bill’s return to the Commons. The government’s amendment in lieu, which introduced anonymity but did not explicitly refer to whistleblowing, was approved in the Commons. The House of Lords considered the Commons amendment on 11 June 2025. Baroness Goldie re-introduced her amendment (with new additional identity protections) on whistleblowers which, when pressed to a vote, was agreed by the Lords.

The bill was returned to the House of Commons. Consideration of the Lords Message is scheduled for 2 July 2025.

This paper has been updated to reflect the amendments added by the House of Lords. Consideration of Lords amendments by the House of Commons is scheduled for Tuesday 3 June 2025.

Why has the bill been introduced?

The Labour Party pledged in its 2024 general election manifesto to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner to “improve service life”.

Introducing the legislation in the 2024 King’s Speech, the government cited “record lows” in morale and a “crisis in recruitment and retention” as driving the need for a “strong, independent voice” to represent the needs of service personnel and their families.

Over the last decade there have been calls by some, predominantly by the Scottish National Party (SNP), for the government to establish a representative body for the armed forces, to act as a voice for personnel on issues such as pay.

The previous Conservative governments resisted such calls, highlighting the chain of command, the three service families’ federations (the Army Families Federation, the RAF Families Federation and the Naval Families Federation), and the Armed Forces Pay Review Body as methods by which personnel could raise concerns. The federations and selected other charities can raise concerns through their contributions to the government’s annual reports on the armed forces covenant, as well as directly with the Ministry of Defence (MOD).

The Labour Party, when in opposition, was critical of the level of the government’s support for service personnel and their families. John Healey, when Shadow Defence Secretary, spoke of morale having “fallen to record lows”, with families living in “damp housing” and using food banks “to get by”. His predecessor, Nia Griffith, also spoke about low morale and its impact on retention.

Annual surveys of service personnel show high levels of dissatisfaction with service life. Nearly six in ten (58%) of personnel said their service morale was low in the armed forces continuous attitude survey 2024, and only four in ten (40%) said they were satisfied with service life in general.

There is an existing process through which personnel can make a complaint about a matter related to service life. This is the service complaints system and is overseen by the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman’s powers are restricted to existing complaints and the present Ombudsman has called for greater powers of investigation. Families of personnel are currently unable to submit a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Prior to the July 2024 general election, Mr Healey indicated the Labour Party would legislate for an independent Armed Forces Commissioner:

They [the Commissioner] will be a voice for armed forces personnel and the families who support them, and will report to Parliament, not Ministers. In that way, we can reinforce the accountability of our military to this House and the public, as well as making it more responsive to those who serve.

The German Parliamentary Commissioner for the Armed Forces provided inspiration for the bill, according to the government’s background notes for the 2024 King’s Speech. The Commissioner reports annually to the German Bundestag (federal parliament) on the state of the Bundeswehr, the German armed forces.

What would the bill do?

The government set out plans to legislate for an Armed Forces Commissioner in the King’s Speech 2024. The accompanying background notes said the Commissioner would:

• be a new, direct and independent contact point for serving personnel and their families, outside their chain of command, to raise issues which impact service life.
• strengthen parliamentary oversight of issues facing our Armed Forces personnel, and report directly on an annual basis to ensure proper accountability.
• be fully empowered to investigate and highlight issues, with access to information and MoD sites as appropriate.

Amending the Armed Forces Act 2006

The bill would amend the Armed Forces Act 2006 by inserting new sections setting out the functions and responsibilities of the Armed Forces Commissioner and transfer the existing functions and powers of the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the new Commissioner.

The bill would also make a technical amendment to the service complaints system, which is set out in the Armed Forces Act 2006 (as amended).

Regulations will be set out in secondary legislation which would be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. This means the regulations will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament before coming into effect.

The bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and personnel would be able to raise a general service welfare matter wherever in the world that welfare matter may have taken place.

Progress of the Bill: Committee stage

The bill was not amended at committee stage. One amendment, to confirm that pensions would be among the topics that a commissioner can investigate, was negatived on division. All other amendments were withdrawn. The committee did not produce a report.

The committee took oral evidence on 10 December 2024. The committee heard from the Service Complaints Ombudsman, representatives from charities including the Defence Medical Welfare Service and the service families’ federations and the Minister for the Armed Forces, Luke Pollard. A transcript of all the oral evidence sessions can be found in Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Compilation PDF).

The bill was welcomed by witnesses and received cross-party support. The power of the commissioner to pursue thematic issues was particularly welcomed. The committee discussed the independence of the commissioner, the definition of family members, and access to the commissioner from veterans and relatives of deceased personnel.

The committee undertook line by line scrutiny of the bill in two sessions on 12 December 2024. A list of the amendments and new clauses tabled at committee, can be found in Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Committee stage decisions) (PDF).

Progress of the Bill: Lords amendments

The bill amended at report stage on 30 April 2025. Third reading took place on 12 May 2025.

The explanatory notes to the Lords Amendments to the bill explain that five amendments were tabled in the name of the Minister, and two were tabled by Baroness Goldie, the Shadow Defence Minister, which were opposed by the government.

The government tabled five amendments, four of which implement the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to change the regulation making power from the negative to the affirmative procedure when defining relevant family members (Clause 4(2)). Amendment 7 is a consequential amendment to ensure consistency in the bill.

Lords Amendments (PDF) 2 and 3 were both tabled by the Shadow Minister, Baroness Goldie and provides for the commissioner to investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of a person subject to service law and relevant family members. A whistleblower was defined as a person subject to service law or a relevant family member, and the concern raised must be about another person subject to service law, and concern relates to general service welfare matters and not to the conditions of service subject to service law. The amendment received cross-party support was passed on division by 245 to 157 votes.

Progress of the bill: Ping Pong

On 3 June 2025 the House of Commons considered amendments made in the Lords. These were:

• Government amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7
• Opposition amendments 2 and 3

The government amendments were agreed without division. Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6 have the effect of changing the regulation-making power to define relevant family members contained in the bill from the negative to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 7 was a technical amendment to language to ensure consistency in the bill.

Amendments 2 and 3, proposed by Baroness Goldie, would enable the commissioner “to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and their relevant family members” and to define the term “whistleblower” for the purposes of this bill.

Luke Pollard, the Armed Forces Minister, said the amendments were unnecessary, because the bill allowed for anyone (as defined) to raise a concern and for the commissioner to investigate any concerns in relation to welfare, and because of legal complications with the term whistleblower in the bill. The Minister proposed an amendment in lieu, which he argued would provide additional protections to ensure anonymity for individuals. MPs voted against the Lords amendments and in favour of the government’s amendment.

On 11 June 2025, the House of Lords considered the Commons amendments. Baroness Goldie proposed an amendment which sought to insert the same definition of whistleblower as her previous amendment, but with two additional requirements aimed at protecting the identity of a whistleblower. The Minister, Lord Coaker, said in response that as written, if the amendment passed “the whistleblower investigations proposed would have the same scope as the current investigations’ powers but none of the additional powers of investigation”. Baroness Goldie pressed the amendment to vote, where it was agreed by 265 to 161.

The bill was returned to the House of Commons. Consideration of the Lords Message is scheduled for 2 July 2025.