Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Baroness Antrobus
Monday 14th September 2026

(2 weeks, 5 days ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Antrobus Portrait Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Antrobus) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 29 June 2026. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. For ease of reference, I will refer to them as the 2015 regulations.

These draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the 2015 regulations to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. This allows for suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system, including liaising with the Armed Forces Commissioner and providing updates on the progress and outcome of service complaints. The regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force.

Secondly, the regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process. This ensures that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions, and it supports the efficient operation of the service complaints process.

Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving the rights of service personnel. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specified administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services themselves, to provide greater flexibility in administering the system.

The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures. Any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the regulations.

In summary, these regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. They improve administrative flexibility, support the efficient operation of the service complaints process and ensure consistency between the regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel or the protections available within the service complaints system. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am delighted to welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for introducing this draft statutory instrument so clearly and effectively. We may be aiming for a record in how fast we deal with a statutory instrument, because it appears, on the face of it, to be uncontroversial. Changing the words “appropriate officer” to “appropriate person” is absolutely straightforward.

The one area where I would be interested to hear the Minister’s advice is on the change to the appeals process. In her opening remarks, she said that it would not really make any difference and that it is intended simply to streamline provisions and to make sure that people are not appealing on frivolous grounds. However, could there be any cases where someone who would have been able to find a way to appeal could be somehow knocked back during the appeal process because the person making the decision—it is not clear whether it will be the “appropriate person” deciding who can and cannot appeal—takes a very hard-line approach to whether the appeal is valid? That is the only area of possible concern.