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

Debate between Earl of Minto and Baroness Antrobus

Monday 14th September 2026 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I too take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to having many instructive exchanges with her.

The crux of the matter under consideration in these regulations is, as has already been mentioned, the substitution of “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” in the 2015 service complaints regulations. Noble Lords present may well remember that this issue was first raised during our debates on the then Armed Forces Commissioner Bill last year. At that time, my noble friend Lady Goldie raised a concern about the removal of the chain of command from the service complaints system. However, after discussions with the Minister and officials, the Government clarified that the amendments to Sections 340B and 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 did not replace the role of the commanding officer but simply supplemented their involvement by permitting a sufficiently qualified civilian also to make a referral to the newly established Armed Forces Commissioner. After receiving that assurance, my noble friend was content to withdraw her opposition to those amendments.

These regulations are consequential to the changes made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 and simply translate the changes made to the service complaints process into the relevant secondary legislation. As such, given the assurance that we received last year, we do not oppose these regulations.

[Baroness Antrobus (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, brief though they were, and for the constructive scrutiny that they have brought to this important issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their welcoming words. I am grateful to them and to their colleagues, as I have learned much from their insightful contributions to defence debates in the months since my introduction to this place earlier this year. They have been most instructive, and I look forward to working with them—preferably not against them, where possible. We all agree, I am sure, that the defence of the nation is the primary duty of our Government.

I will address the concerns raised. On the specific concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the amendment is not intended to prevent service personnel making a complaint. Service personnel will continue to be able to raise service complaints. The amendment applies only to decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds. The idea is to make the service complaints system better for those who need it most and ensure it is not clogged up by specific service complaints about a service complaint. The amendment does not affect the substantive right to make a complaint or appeal a complaint decision; it simply clarifies that procedural decisions relating to the validity of an appeal cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process.

As I set out, the regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. To recap, the first amendment provides greater flexibility by allowing suitably qualified civilians, as well as military personnel, to carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The second amendment clarifies that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process, supporting the efficient operation of that system. Importantly, these amendments do not alter the rights of service personnel, the grounds on which a service complaint may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. With those comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.