Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Clause 1

Armed Forces Commissioner

14:00:00

I beg to move, That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment. Before I start, I place on record my thanks to all those right hon. and hon. Members who supported Armed Forces Day events at the weekend across the length and breadth of our country. The Secretary of State had the privilege of attending the national event in Cleethorpes, and I spent time with our armed forces community on Plymouth Hoe to see the fantastic turnout not just of armed forces personnel but of their families, veterans, and the charities and organisations that support everyone who serves and has served. Meeting and hearing from service personnel and their families at this important moment of recognition of our armed forces is a great honour, and provides a moment of reflection for everyone in this House on the great service that those in the military provide to the nation. I am disappointed that the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill has returned to this House. The last time we were here, a full month ago, I explained that the Bill already delivers what the other House had inserted. I am therefore disappointed that the amendment in the name of Baroness Goldie seeks to replace the Government amendment with other amendments, which I am afraid are deeply flawed. I will explain why. To be absolutely clear, we are all in agreement about the intention behind the Lords amendments. Defence personnel must feel empowered and protected in coming forward with their concerns, and I absolutely agree that we need to address and eliminate toxic behaviours and cultures in our armed forces. This Government are committed to doing exactly that, which is the whole reason we are shining a light on the welfare matters of our people and legislating for an independent champion in the form of the Armed Forces Commissioner.

I commend the Minister and the Government for bringing this Bill forward, and I understand the issue—I spoke to the Minister just beforehand. Lords amendment 2 deals with whistleblowers and protections for family members, which are necessary. I have a complaint ready to hand to the Minister that was facilitated by family members watching the effect on their loved one. Does the Minister agree that it is right and proper that loved ones have a mechanism for ensuring the right thing is done by those who are legitimately whistleblowing?

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are insisting on our amendment and not accepting the Opposition amendment made in the other place, because that amendment does not include family members. I agree that including loved ones—family members, for the purposes of the wording of the Bill—within the remit of the Armed Forces Commissioner is an important new step in providing not just members in uniform, but their immediate family members as defined in the secondary legislation that will accompany the Bill, with the opportunity to raise a general service welfare matter. I agree that there is a lot more we can debate on these matters, and there will be an opportunity to do so during the passage of the next armed forces Bill. However, I say to all Members that I am concerned that going round again on this matter only holds up delivery of a key element that will be used to tackle the very issues this amendment seeks to address. Namely, it holds up the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner, which was a key manifesto commitment for defence. The longer this Bill is prevented from becoming law, the greater the disservice we do to our armed forces and their families. I sincerely hope that today we can send a united message from this House that we do not wish to delay this vital legislation any further.

Like everyone else in this House, I am incredibly proud of our armed forces, and particularly of our relationship with them in St Helens. Just yesterday, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment paraded through St Helens town centre after being awarded the freedom of the borough—we are so incredibly proud. Does the Minister agree that we just need to get on with this now, so that we can show a united front and speak with one voice in support of our armed forces, and give them the support they need?

I thank my hon. Friend for placing on the record the military events in his constituency. It is so important that we recognise the links and ties that so many of our military units have with the localities from which they recruit, where they are based and where they serve. I agree with his broader point; the time is right for us to pass this Bill, get it into law, and allow us to move to a situation in which we have an Armed Forces Commissioner able to deal with the issues raised by our people and their family members. The Government took on board the important debates in both Houses and proposed amendment 2A, to which this House previously agreed. That amendment honoured the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments in the other place and actually went further than her proposals, delivering concrete legal protections that were not included in the amendments that are back before us today. We are seeking to reinsert that better amendment, which was made early in the process and in good faith, following discussions and co-operation with the Opposition in the other place. Given the strong cross-party support for the Bill and clear arguments in favour of the amendment in lieu, we had been hoping that that would enable us to conclude proceedings. The Government amendment will establish genuine protection for people wishing to raise a concern anonymously, and will build trust and confidence among our armed forces and their families in a way we cannot envisage will be achieved by the proposed amendments that are before us today.

I was very happy to serve on the Committee for the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill while it was proceeding through this place. As the Minister knows, there was a large amount of consensus about the need for that process to conclude as quickly as possible, and I recently wrote an article with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) about the need to give our armed forces the reassurance that this Government are taking action to support them and their families. Does the Minister agree that it really is time to get on with this? We have a consensus in this House that the Armed Forces Commissioner should be able to begin work as quickly as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for the work he has been undertaking with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). The Armed Forces Commissioner was a key manifesto promise made at the general election, and made with the deliberate intent of providing an independent voice—an independent champion for those people who serve. We know that for many of our people some of the service welfare matters are not good enough, including childcare and the poor state of military accommodation. The ability of the commissioner to raise those issues, investigate them and use the additional new powers not currently available to the Service Complaints Ombudsman is a substantial step forward for our people and a key plank of renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. I agree with my hon. Friend that I would like to see that get into law. Briefly, I will remind the House of the protections currently afforded to the armed forces; one thing I have been made aware of during these debates and discussions is that it is worth repeating some of those, so that there can be no doubt about them. All defence personnel are protected in relation to whistleblowing under existing defence policy, which enables individuals to raise and resolve issues in a way that is protected and secure and does not lead to wrongful disclosure of official information. The armed forces operate within a different legal and constitutional construct to that of civilians, so they are not explicitly covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—PIDA. However, as a matter of policy under this Government and the previous Government, the Ministry of Defence already recognises and adheres to the criteria for protected disclosures, and it follows the prescribed procedures and protections for those making a qualifying disclosure. The MOD will not tolerate any form of victimisation of an individual for raising a genuine concern. The Government amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments which, taken together, further bolster trust and confidence in the Armed Forces Commissioner in that respect. They include reviewing and updating the Ministry of Defence’s policies and protections relating to raising a concern, which would include whistleblowing in the sense we are discussing it today. To be clear, the Government recognise the importance of due protection for whistleblowers. Indeed, just this week the Cabinet Office is hosting a whistleblowing conference, bringing together policy representatives from across Government to review the current whistleblowing framework and discuss forthcoming changes under the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill contains a new clause strengthening protections for people wishing to make a protected disclosure under PIDA, and explicitly recognises sexual harassment as grounds for a protected disclosure. The Ministry of Defence’s “raising a concern” policy will be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes, and we welcome the interest of Members from all parties in that process.

What proportion of the commissioner’s time, and that of his or her staff, does the Minister envisage being devoted to individual matters of casework, of the sort he has just described, and what proportion will be around thematic investigations, such as the state of service housing?

That is a genuinely fair question. The Bill is drafted in such a way that there is no obligation or requirement for any commissioner who is appointed to resource according to a Government position. It is for the Armed Forces Commissioner to decide the allocation of resources and energy. However, the German armed forces model, from which we have taken inspiration, undertakes two to three thematic investigations a year with dedicated teams, using feedback from people who have raised a concern officially and from those getting in touch to raise an issue but not necessarily expecting it to be dealt with as casework. The majority of the resource, due to the casework function, relates to correspondence, but it would be for the UK Armed Forces Commissioner to make that determination. The Bill provides the powers to do that. Let me come to the amendments from the other place, because the powers relating to whistleblowing are a key part of why we do not think the amendments are suitable. First, the use of “whistleblower” is inappropriate in this context, despite the value we place on the function. Although more recently the use of the term has been more relaxed, and raising a concern and whistleblowing are used interchangeably, engagement in 2019 under the previous Government with the whistleblowing charity Protect suggested that the term might be putting people off coming forward. Today, we are talking about law, rather than the policy that will be implemented. Although the term whistleblowing appears in a few limited circumstances in law, there is no single agreed definition of whistleblowing in UK legislation. Simply using the term in this Bill, as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2B and 2C, would therefore have no practical legal effect and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not already provided for in the Government’s amendment in lieu. Terminology aside, I have several real concerns about the new amendments inserted in the other place. The whistleblower investigations proposed by these amendments have the same scope as the current investigations on general service welfare matters provided for by the Bill, but none of the associated powers of investigation, so the amendments do not allow the commissioner to access sites to assist their investigation. They do not allow the commissioner to access information or documents to assist their investigation. They do not require the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations, as is the current wording, and the amendments do not require reports to go to the Secretary of State or to be laid before Parliament. The scope of the amendments is therefore considerably narrower. Issues raised under the proposed new clause can relate only to people subject to service law—namely the men and women of our armed forces and not family members, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—and cannot be about terms of service. The commissioner would need to consult the individual before starting an investigation, constraining their independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure from seniors to withhold consent. The anonymity protections would relate only to investigations under this proposed new clause, which is unlikely ever to be used, for the reasons that I have set out. It also removes the anonymity protections that the Government propose to include. More importantly, however, the Bill is intended to provide a safe route for people to come forward with their concerns and know that they will be considered by a truly independent figure. We want people to feel secure and empowered to raise those concerns, and we want the commissioner to have the full range of powers as provided for in the Bill to deal with all matters raised with them. The amendments would restrict the powers available to the commissioner to deal with complaints raised through this process. I do not believe that is really what the House wants to see on whistleblowing.

The Minister will remember a Westminster Hall debate—I think it was last week—in which I inaccurately and over-optimistically referred to this as the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, not realising it was still going back and forth between here and the other place. I was corrected by the shadow Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I assumed it was a friendly correction of my misunderstanding about process. Have I correctly understood that what is going on is some kind of political difference over the use of the word “whistleblower”, which has led to a badly drafted amendment being inserted into the Bill? That amendment will weaken the Bill and reduce its ability to do what is intended. At the same time, it will delay things, when the Department is at the point of being able to advertise for and appoint an Armed Forces Commissioner—someone to be in that role, fighting for the welfare of our armed service personnel.

14:15:00

I hope that this is not a party political issue, because many of the Members raising concerns about whistleblowing in the other place are doing so because they recognise that cultural issues within our armed forces need to be addressed and to get clarity on what the Government seek to do. I hope that from the statements that my colleague Lord Coaker has made to the other place, and from the remarks I have made at this Dispatch Box, colleagues can feel reassured that we take issues of culture, harassment and abuse seriously, and we are clear that there is no place for them in our armed forces. We are updating the policies and procedures on whistleblowing and raising a concern from the policy we inherited from the last Government, so as to improve it and take it further. We recognise that the Employment Rights Bill will further strengthen that. I realise that the Opposition do not support the Employment Rights Bill, but we do, and it will further enhance the protections for whistleblowers. By updating these policies and by including the cross-Government learning that our colleagues in the Cabinet Office are co-ordinating at the moment, we will have a stronger policy. I hope that my placing that on the record here, as my noble Friend Lord Coaker will do in the other place when the Bill returns there, will be enough for those Members who are concerned to be satisfied that the Government have a genuine desire to address these issues and that the amendments, as drafted, create a narrower scope for the commissioner, and would prevent them from achieving their objectives, due to the wording. It is therefore time to let the amendments fall away so that the Bill can pass. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I assure him that he is not the only person who gets intervened on by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for clarification. We are always grateful for his knowledge when he does so. We have deliberately drafted the Bill to be as broad, clear and inclusive as possible, and through our communications campaigns and guidance that we have already announced, we will make it clear to anyone who is subject to service law that they and their families can approach the commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter, however big or small, and whether it affects them directly or not. In that respect, it provides for the intended functions of the amendments. I make it explicitly clear that the powers to initiate investigations based on information provided by the commissioner already exist in the Bill. In addition, there are existing policies and procedures in place for people in defence to raise concerns that fall outside the definition of a general service welfare matter, such as fraud or criminal activity. Recognised protections are already in place for those matters. All defence civil servants are covered by the protections provided by PIDA, and all military personnel are provided those same protections through existing defence policy. Our commitment to review and update defence policy and processes, in conjunction with the protections that are already in place for both civilians and members of our armed forces, plus the deficiencies in the amendments inserted by the other place, mean that now is the time for both Houses to do the right thing and bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity. Lord Coaker and I will be writing to the Opposition spokespeople in the other place—I am grateful for the engagement that has already taken place, both between Baroness Goldie and Lord Coaker and between the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), Baroness Kramer and me—to address their concerns in detail, to provide written assurances about the changes we are making that confirm what I have said at the Dispatch Box today, and to invite their contributions as we seek to develop and renew the “raising a concern” policy. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position, to ensure that we can deliver this vital manifesto commitment for our brave servicemen and women and their families as soon as possible.

I call the shadow Minister.

I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place. As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system. Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty. The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom. The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent. The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress. Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person “subject to service law or…a relevant family member.” Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary. Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families. This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. 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 that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve. I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I welcome Lord amendments 2B and 2C, tabled by Baroness Goldie in response to the Government’s rejection of the original proposals. These amendments are not about party politics. They were tabled by a Conservative peer and supported across the House of Lords by Liberal Democrats and others. They represent a thoughtful, pragmatic effort to address a real and persistent problem: the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner who is not just a complaints handler, but an independent figure capable of receiving and investigating whistleblowing disclosures about systemic welfare failures confidentially and without fear of reprisal. I welcome that the Minister has engaged with Baroness Kramer and me. However, the Government’s insistence on removing the Lords amendments and replacing them with something far more limited is deeply disappointing. Their approach diminishes the ambition of the Bill and misses a critical opportunity to build genuine trust with service personnel and their families—something that the commissioner must get right from the start, or it will be near impossible to regain. Let us be honest about what is at stake. Behind the language of “whistleblowing” are real people—soldiers, spouses and contractors—who have seen something go seriously wrong and want to make it right, not for themselves but for others. They are not filing a complaint; they are raising the alarm. Yet again and again, we have seen these people let down—unheard, unsupported or even punished for speaking out. From the appalling housing conditions endured by military families to serious allegations of abuse and misconduct, the public have grown increasingly aware that internal complaints mechanisms are not enough. That is why introducing whistleblowing matters, and why the Lords amendments are so vital.

14:30:00

Baroness Goldie’s revised amendments 2B and 2C strike a balance. They would preserve the key elements of whistleblower protection, including a statutory duty for the commissioner to protect the anonymity of those who come forward, and they would respond directly to concerns raised by the Government by making it clear that reports must not identify whistleblowers without their consent. The amendments would bring the Armed Forces Commissioner in line with modern expectations of public service oversight. From regulators and financial services to the NHS and beyond, having a whistleblowing channel alongside a complaints function is now standard.

The Government argue that including the term “whistleblower” in legislation could somehow deter people from coming forward, and refer to previous analysis undertaken by the last Government. I find this baffling. The term is well established in UK law, understood by the public and associated with greater protections. It is clear, accessible and trusted, and diluting or avoiding it sends precisely the wrong message. The Lords amendments would do more than close a gap; they would send a message to our armed forces community that Parliament is listening and that we recognise their loyalty—not just in word, but in the systems we put in place to protect them.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a fair deal for service personnel and their families. We support the Bill, and the creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner as soon as possible, but to be effective the role must be equipped with the right tools and must work from day one. That means giving people a confidential route to raise serious concerns, and letting them know that they will be treated with dignity and protected by law.

I will vote against the Government’s motion to remove the Lords amendments, and I urge all Members to do the same. Baroness Goldie has offered a constructive and reasonable way forward. Her compromise amendments uphold the integrity of the Bill, would give the commissioner proper investigatory reach and, most importantly, would give service personnel and their families a voice they can trust. Let us take this opportunity to make the Bill stronger and the culture of our armed forces fairer, safer and more accountable.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) that we should arm the commissioner with the right tools on day one. That is precisely why I do not want to accept an amendment that would restrict those tools and provide weaker protections for people raising whistleblowing concerns via a proposed route, rather that the route that is already in the Bill. It is precisely because I want the Bill to work that I am not accepting weaker amendments. I always find it useful to use the phrase “flip it to see it” to see whether something would work, and I want to try that here. Let us take the counterfactual: if the Government proposed an amendment that would restrict the commissioner’s access to sites in relation to a whistleblowing complaint compared to a normal complaint, or an amendment that would restrict access to information and documents assisting an investigation for a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal matter, and that would restrict the requirement for the Secretary of State to co-operate, assist or consider any findings or recommendations on a whistleblowing complaint rather than a normal complaint, I think this House would rightly reject it. I am afraid that is what the Lords amendments would deliver: narrower scope, fewer powers and less ability for the commissioner to investigate. I hope that the House can see from my remarks that we believe in providing a route for people to raise their concerns anonymously. We believe in the protections for it, and we are updating the “raising a concern” policy that we inherited from the last Government in order to deliver that work. The Bill should be passed and be made an Act of Parliament, so that we can implement its provisions as fast as we can. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) argues against the advice that his Government issued. He is well within his rights to do so, given his Government were defeated, but it is contrary to the position that existed until July. I do not support a poorer amendment. I have engaged constructively and will continue to do so, because it is right to do so. That is the spirit of this Government on this legislation, and it will continue to be the case. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of not being serious about working for our armed forces personnel, so let me very clear: I do not accept less for our armed forces personnel. I am not accepting the amendments from the other place, because they would provide fewer protections for people on the route that he suggests and fewer powers for the commissioner to undertake that work. I believe that if it were not for the necessity to play some ping-pong in this respect, he would be agreeing with me on this matter. Let us pass this Bill, put it in place, and give our armed force and their families the independent champion that they so richly deserve.

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies. Question put.

251|14:36|321|158|The House divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

That this House insists on Commons amendment 2A, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the Lords in Lords amendments 2B and 2C proposed in lieu of that amendment.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on Commons amendment 2A and disagreeing to Lords amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of that amendment;

That Kate Dearden, Rachel Hopkins, Graeme Downie, Luke Akehurst, Lizzi Collinge, Mark Francois and Tessa Munt be members of the Committee;

That Kate Dearden be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gerald Jones.)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 outlawed foreign Government ownership of UK media organisations, setting a limit of 5% on that process. The Government have now moved that from 5% to 15%, which is considerably higher. However, there has been only a marginal debate in a Statutory Instrument Committee. My concern—it has only just been passed—is that that is a major change. It would have been fair if the Government had set about having a proper debate on it here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, because newspaper ownership is a very significant issue. The other place will potentially get a much larger debate, yet we are the elected House. I ask your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we may raise the issue again?

I thank the right hon. Member for giving me prior notice of this point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but his comments are now on the record.