Draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 January 2026. Their purpose is to give effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, a landmark reform for our armed forces and the families of those serving. The Act establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who will have the authority to visit Defence sites, request information and investigate welfare concerns, reporting directly to Parliament. By replacing the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a stronger, more proactive model, the Act strengthens transparency, accountability and trust. It also delivers a critical manifesto commitment of improving the day-to-day experience of those who serve and ensuring that their voices are heard at the highest level.
These Regulations formally establish the definition of “family member” for the Commissioner’s functions. This is central to ensuring that the Commissioner’s remit is clear and inclusive, and that it reflects the real-life experiences of armed forces families in today’s military. For the first time, families will have a direct route to raise welfare issues about how service life affects them, recognising that the welfare of serving personnel is inseparable from the wellbeing of their families.
The draft regulations introduce three main changes. First, they set out a broad and inclusive definition of family member: partners, including ex-partners and those in relationships akin to marriage; children; including adult children and those for whom the serviceperson or their partner has or had responsibility; siblings, including step-siblings; parents and guardians; and other relatives who are financially dependent, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are also included, provided they fit into one of those categories at the time of the serviceperson’s death. We have deliberately adopted an inclusive approach, because modern service life does not just encompass the traditional nuclear family.
Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to existing legislation, transferring functions from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the newly created Armed Forces Commissioner to ensure continuity and clarity in the service complaints system. Thirdly, transitional and savings provisions are included to ensure a smooth handover of responsibilities, so that ongoing cases and applications are managed seamlessly and without disruption.
These regulations are made under powers in the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999. The policy intent is to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families most likely to be impacted by service life, reflecting the wide variety of modern family structures. Following feedback from Parliament and stakeholders, we have deliberately made the definition broader than those typically used by the MOD. It is designed to ensure that those most impacted by service life are supported, while remaining specific to the commissioner’s functions and not affecting other MOD definitions. It is important to stress, however, that this definition does not bring family members into the scope of the service complaints system; it is solely for the commissioner’s welfare remit.
The Government consulted extensively with stakeholders, including the Families Federations, MPs and peers. Feedback indicated strong support for the Bill’s objectives and for the proposed definition, with key asks, such as the inclusion of bereaved family members and adult children, addressed in the draft. As the Bill’s measures are rolled out, families will be given guidance and help so that they understand their rights and how to engage with the commissioner. The approach is proportionate, consistent and clear, without affecting other MOD definitions of family member.
In summary, these draft regulations provide clarity, inclusivity and coherence for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit, ensuring that both service personnel and their families are supported. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Opposition support these regulations. This is a straightforward piece of legislation, but we have some points that we would like the Minister to clarify.
When will the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be appointed? In January 2025 the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), then Armed Forces Minister, stated:
“Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 930.]
Could the Minister confirm that that position remains extant? If it does, could she indicate the timeframe within which the Government expect the Armed Forces Commissioner to be appointed?
In the interim, once this legislation comes into effect on 1 April, how will the responsibilities of the Service Complaints Ombudsman be discharged? Will the current ombudsman remain in place until the Armed Forces Commissioner is appointed or will this role, and those responsibilities due to be transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner, be gapped?
The statutory instrument states in paragraph 3(3):
“For the purposes of this Regulation, references to A’s spouse or civil partner includes—
a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners;
a former spouse or civil partner of A;
a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners.”
Could the Minister clarify that long-term relationships are covered in the same way? From the way she described it, it sounds as though they are, but I want to clarify that point. Could she also clarify the definition of
“akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”?
It would be helpful to know that there is a clear understanding of how this legislation defines a relationship and therefore who is or is not covered by the legislation.
I reiterate that we support this SI, but those are some minor points of clarification that we believe need to be addressed.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the regulations. To answer his questions, the new Armed Forces Commissioner and his office are expected to be operational from April; I hope that also addresses some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about a possible gap with the service complaints process. Long-term relationships are, as he says, covered, and guidance will be issued in due course with the exact clarification.
Question put and agreed to.