MPs have agreed to prolong a standoff with the Lords over plans to give the military welfare watchdog powers to respond to whistleblowers.
The Commons backed a Government amendment to the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill by 321 votes to 158, majority 163, which would allow the proposed armed forces commissioner to conceal the identity of personnel who raise welfare complaints.
Peers had previously rejected this amendment and proposed an alternative whistleblowing route, demanding the commissioner must “take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower”.
But armed forces minister Luke Pollard asked MPs to disagree with the Lords’ proposal and insist on the Government’s plan.
He said the proposal he backed was a “better amendment”, and added: “The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and build trust and confidence with the armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments we have before us today.”
The proposed law will set up the commissioner’s role and office, replacing the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces.
They will be able to hear directly from personnel and family members with concerns about their service, and their investigation reports will be lodged with the Government and Parliament.
Mr Pollard said the Government had a “deliberate intent to provide an independent voice, an independent champion for those people who serve”.
He continued: “We know that, for many of our people, some of the service welfare matters are not good enough. That is childcare for many people, the poor state of military accommodation.
“The ability for the commissioner to be able to raise those issues, to investigate them, to use the additional new powers not available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman currently is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve.”
The Lords amendment would have given the commissioner explicit powers to “investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower”.
Mr Pollard told MPs he wanted to “address the use of the word ‘whistleblower’ as being inappropriate in this context”.
He said the term had become “relaxed”, as “‘raising a concern’ and ‘whistleblowing’ are used interchangeably”.
This offered “weaker protections” than the Government’s proposal, Mr Pollard said, which would instead block the armed forces commissioner from identifying a person who raises a welfare concern in their report.
Conservative shadow defence minister Mark Francois warned the idea that “whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition” is “simply untenable”.
Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is already titled “investigation of concerns raised by whistleblowers”, he added.
Mr Francois told the Commons: “Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty.
“To block it would signal the Government is not serious about working constructively with the opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel.”
The Bill is in its final stages before it becomes law in a process sometimes known as “ping-pong”, as it bounces between the two Houses of Parliament.
“If we carry on playing ping-pong? Well, that’s a sport I once was quite good at,” Mr Francois said before the vote.
The draft new law faces further scrutiny in the Lords.
