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

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The purpose of the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 June 2026, is to make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The draft regulations ensure that the service complaints system remains aligned with primary legislation and continues to operate effectively. The draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015 to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. That reflects amendments made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 to section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It clarifies that suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel may carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The draft regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force. Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving service personnel’s rights. Secondly, the draft regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions relating to whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints system. That will ensure that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions and will support the efficient operation of the service complaints process. Together, these amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, while improving administrative flexibility and supporting the efficient operation of the service complaints system. The draft regulations are made under the powers contained in the Armed Forces Act 2006. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following changes to primary legislation made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The amendments contained in the draft regulations are technical and consequential in nature. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specific administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services to provide greater flexibility in administrating the system. The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures, and any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the draft regulations. In summary, the draft 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 service complaints regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

The service complaints system is a vital safeguard for members of the armed forces and those who have served. It has been brilliant to be on the Armed Forces Bill Committee over the past year with Members from the Liberal Democrats and many Government Members. It is nice to be able to touch on this in a consensual way, and those on the Government Front Bench will be happy to know that we will not seek to divide the Committee. This statutory instrument gives people who believe that they have been wronged in a matter relating to their service a route to seek redress. Everyone who serves or has served has an interest in a process that is fair, accessible and efficient. There has been progress, but serious pressures still remain; the Armed Forces Bill Committee heard that repeatedly when we visited the service justice unit down in Portsmouth. In her 2025 annual report, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, assessed the system as efficient and effective for the first time, but not yet fair. The report also records that the tri-service timeliness targets were not met, and that staffing problems across all three services hindered progress on cases. The Royal Air Force, in whose outfit the Minister served, illustrates the pressure. Its workforce review identified under-resourcing of all four full-time case management roles. Under the new timeliness measure, 42% of RAF complaints were closed within the 24-week target in 2025, against a 90% target. The average resolution time rose from 22 weeks to 28 weeks, and the number of open RAF cases increased for the third year running. Against that backdrop, the Opposition believe that the instrument replacing the term “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” is a good change. It allows for administrative roles, following a referral from the commissioner, to be carried out by a competent civilian as well as by military officers. The role includes informing the individual that the allegation has been referred, finding out whether they wish to make a service complaint and notifying the commissioner of the outcome. Those are referral and notification functions. The instrument does not give a civilian a new power to determine the merits of the underlying complaint. This reform will streamline the system, ease resourcing pressures and deliver better value for money. The second change enacted by the instrument concerns a decision on whether an appeal was brought on a ground permitted by the applicable regulations. The instrument adds that decision to the list of matters about which a person may make a service complaint, and the 2025 annual report gives useful context. Between 2021 and 2025, admissibility applications to the ombudsman increased by 72%, from 108 to 186, while substance and maladministration applications increased by 5%. In 2025, 37% of the admissibility applications concerned appeal admissibility reviews, while only 15% of the admissibility review cases were upheld—by far the lowest proportion of all applications being upheld. We know from having heard directly from the service justice unit that the wider system is already under pressure, and it is an issue we have tried to resolve through the Armed Forces Bill. A complaint received in 2025 that was not appealed took an average of 20 weeks to close; where an appeal was admitted, the average was 33 weeks. It is therefore reasonable to prevent the specified decision on valid appeal grounds from becoming the subject of fresh service complaints. The instrument will help to relieve pressure on the complaints system and increase the resourcing available to deal with other complaints, and it will not touch the right to appeal on applicable grounds. The risk of injustice, we believe, is minimal, and as such, the Opposition support this instrument.

I would just like to ratify and concur with what has been said. The explanatory notes say: “A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.” I agree with the wording and the amendments to the wording, so I am happy to support the instrument.

I will not keep the Committee long. I am very pleased to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Minister, still in post, as this is a policy area that he has cared deeply about throughout his life. I share the broad support for the instrument expressed by the shadow Minister, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East. I have only two questions, and I appreciate that the Minister may want to write to me afterwards for clarification; I am perfectly content for him to do so. On paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum, I would be grateful if he could set out to the Committee, now or subsequently, what the definition of “competent person” is and what that constitutes. I appreciate it may be set out in the 2006 or 2025 primary parent legislation to these draft regulations, but if he can, I would be grateful for a little clarification. Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the legislation being continuously monitored. If the Minister can offer a little more flesh on the bones as to how that monitoring takes place—whether it is by serving officers, his Department or Ministers—I would be grateful. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I support what the Minister seeks to do with this statutory instrument.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank Members for their contributions. I welcome the statement from the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East and the questions from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who is a passionate advocate for service-related matters and for his constituents who have served. It would only be fair for me to write to him with some clarity on the two points he raised, because they are slightly more technical than the actual substance of the draft regulations, which are quite straightforward. As I have set out, the draft regulations make two very simple but consequential amendments to the service complaints system. The first provides greater flexibility, which the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East spoke about, by allowing suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel to carry out the 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 the service complaints system. Together, those amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, as we have heard, the amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made, or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.