'Armed Forces Federation' at Westminster

• Armed Forces (Federation) Bill - HC Bill 117 (2006-07)
• Armed Forces (Personnel) debate, 10 January 2008

Armed Forces (Federation) Bill - HC Bill 117 (2006-07)

This Private Members Bill failed to achieve a Second Reading on the appointed date of 19 October, 2007 and therefore 'fell' for lack of time, as is the fate of most such Bills introduced under the 'Ten Minute Rule'.

While Kevan Jones MP at the Bill's First Reading on 6 June 2007 cited BAFF as the obvious UK example of what could be achieved by a representative organisation for armed forces personnel, the aim of the Armed Forces (Federation) Bill was simply to promote the principle of representation. BAFF did not instigate the Bill, but naturally welcomed it.

In November 2007 'The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK' (no connection with BAFF) began a parliamentary letter-writing campaign calling for the withdrawal of the Bill - even though the Bill had already fallen.

BAFF, on the other hand, clearly supports the principle of a professional representative body for members of the armed forces, and looks forward to the issue returning to Parliament.

External links:

TheyWorkForYou.com - Debates 6 June 2007 - Armed Forces (Federation) Bill introduced

ePolitix.com - Armed Forces (Federation) Bill [Failed Bill 2006/07 session]

The Combined Armed Forces Federation UK (CAFFUK). For those interested in CAFFUK's pre-1975 occupational pension issue - see also Armed Forces Pension Group (AFPG)

Armed Forces (Personnel) debate, 10 January 2008

Conservative MPs Liam Fox (Shadow Defence Secretary) and John Baron both said in this debate that armed forces personnel - unlike the police - have no federation to represent them. From the Government benches, Kevan Jones MP said that

We have heard about the voice that armed forces personnel can have, which in the new media age is increasingly heard on the internet and in other forums where they can comment. I proposed adding to the Bill that became the Armed Forces Act 2006 a new clause that would have given legal recognition to an armed forces federation. I believe that an armed forces federation is long overdue in this country—not a trade union that would represent armed forces personnel, allow them to go on strike or do anything like that, but a body that would provide a voice for ordinary servicemen and women in the chain of command. I am not for one minute saying that such a body should be able to interfere in the chain of command; however, there is a problem with how far up the chain of command some of the legitimate complaints made by members of the armed forces have gone. Do they reach senior generals and Ministers? Such a federation would be important.

and Eric Joyce MP said that

My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) referred to his attempt to gain some recognition for the British Armed Forces Federation, an interesting subject that provided food for thought. There is often debate around whether a union is or is not applicable, and most hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that a union in its conventional format would not apply to the armed services. Interestingly, however, the legal position with the armed services as I understand it would be that, although service personnel could join a trade union, they simply could not be represented in the conventional way, and there is no move by the trade unions to take on that role.

Nevertheless, that raises the important issue of who advocates and how that advocacy is done. The Personnel Command Paper and other such matters give us the opportunity in the House to comment and organisations outside to make their presence known. I have read much that the British Armed Forces Federation has sent out and I have looked at its website. It seems to have many sensible things to say, and perhaps that is the way in which it can contribute.

External link:

• Armed Forces (Personnel) debate, House of Commons, 10 January 2008