Defence committee

Calvin Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I am proud to present the Defence Committee’s fourth report of this Parliament, which is evidence of how hard the Committee has been working on behalf of Parliament and the British people in these highly volatile and uncertain times. I thank the Committee, the staff—in particular George James—and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for his leadership.

I am pleased to share the armed forces covenant report. As the House knows, the covenant is our society’s commitment to the armed forces community—a commitment to recognising and rewarding their service, and ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in civilian life as a result of that service. The Government said in their manifesto that they would strengthen the covenant by putting it “fully into law”.

Our report does two things: it looks at the covenant today to examine how well it is living up to society’s commitment to the armed forces; and it looks at how the Government should make that commitment stronger when they bring forward legislation. We heard that they plan to do so through the Armed Forces Bill next year.

We decided that the best way to understand how well the covenant is working was to ask the people it is designed to help, so we invited serving personnel, their families and veterans to share their experiences with us. We are hugely grateful to everyone who took the time to write to us. Their powerful contributions helped us to get to the truth on where the covenant is succeeding and where it is falling short. We are so grateful to the Secretary of State for giving his permission to serving personnel to send us their stories, as well as to the organisations who provided evidence directly to our inquiry.

The evidence painted a mixed picture of how the covenant is working today. We heard some positive stories, including from an individual who said that citing the covenant to their local NHS trust helped them get a timely mental health assessment for their child; but unfortunately such stories were in the minority. Most of the stories we received came from people who had expected the covenant to help them but found that it was ineffective or, worse, disregarded. One person who was on a waiting list for NHS treatment was told that their position on the list would transfer when they moved from Scotland to the south of England on service, but after they moved, they found themselves at the back of the queue. When they raised that with the trust, they were told that the trust

“didn’t recognise and therefore follow the armed forces covenant.”

We heard many stories like that. It is hardly surprising that those people viewed the covenant as “a gimmick”, with “no real substance”, or as something that

“looks good on public bodies’ websites but in practice means nothing at all.”

The Government are therefore right to recognise that the covenant needs to improve. Their proposal is to extend its scope, so that more areas of central Government are subjected to it. We welcome that, and we recommend that the covenant be applied to all Government Departments. With that, we expect to see Departments paying better attention to the needs of the forces community when they make policy, and we expect to see the covenant applied to areas of life that the existing duty does not cover, and areas in which the forces community experiences disadvantages, such as employment, social care, welfare and immigration, in particular for non-UK passport holders.

However, we are clear that legislating is only part of the solution. Our evidence shows that one of the biggest issues is that the covenant is not consistently applied, either because people are not aware of it, because it is not well understood, or because it is not given a high enough priority. That is why we heard that the armed forces community’s experience of the covenant varies massively depending on where they live.

If the law is not consistently applied, amending the statute book will make little difference. That is why our report says that the Government need a proper plan for implementing the covenant, in tandem with introducing new legislation. That needs commitment from all Government Departments, and we should not underestimate the scale of the commitment necessary. Getting this right is as important as updating the law, if not more so.

The armed forces covenant is a noble proposition, but sadly we do not always live up to it as a society. We want to get to a place where our service personnel and our veterans can be in no doubt that when they deal with their local council, doctor or employer, the covenant will support them. New legislation will help, but it is not a silver bullet. We also need to embed the covenant more deeply in our institutions, and particularly across Government and in wider society.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There are no interventions during the statement.

[Mr Bailey]

As we say in our report, the covenant gives us all a duty to our servicemen and women. We must take it as seriously as they have taken their duty to us. I commend the report to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the report and congratulate all members of the Committee and the witnesses who played their part in the inquiry. Overall, may I extend the Opposition’s best wishes to our veterans, to our armed services, and to our serving men and women, who deserve our respect and utmost gratitude every day?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the contents of his report. As he will know, we sat on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill Committee together. What role does he think the Armed Forces Commissioner could play in upholding the armed forces covenant? Could they have an independent role in assessing how Government Departments do? If that is not the right mechanism, do he or his Committee have a view on some independent scrutiny to assess whether the Government and all Departments are adhering to the covenant? Have they looked at how that could be upheld?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his points. I join him in thanking our servicemen and women for their service and recognising their sacrifices. On the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner, the report states in part 3 that there have been no recognisable measures of success. The Minister and his Department will have to take that on and bring forward some answers. It is probably within that framework that the Armed Forces Commissioner will have some role. However, it is a critical failing of our application of the armed forces covenant that success is not measured, so it is not monitored almost anywhere.

[Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for representing the Defence Committee. Labour’s commitment to fully enshrine the armed forces covenant in law is a vital step in recognising the sacrifices made by our service members and their families. However, our report examines some significant gaps in coverage. In particular, I highlight the treatment of non-UK personnel and their families. Unlike other routes, the immigration status given to serving and recently discharged personnel does not allow them to work or access social security. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Ministry of Defence to resolve this issue with the Home Office well in advance of the covenant’s expansion?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. She does a great job in representing the home of the British Army and raises the issues consistently, both with the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces community and on the Defence Committee—indeed, she did so throughout the inquiry.

My hon. Friend’s point is powerfully made because it supports what the forces’ families federations brought forward in their evidence. They pointed out that:

“There is no other immigration route in which someone legally in the UK isn’t allowed to work or claim benefits whilst their application is being decided.”

That is a massive travesty and a failure, and an example of the armed forces facing a unique disadvantage. It is exactly the sort of anomaly that an updated covenant should attempt to address.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for bringing the report to the Chamber today. The Government must urgently reconsider the proposed changes to the application of inheritance tax on certain armed forces death-in-service payments. The Forces Pension Society has described that as

“a direct breach of the Armed Forces Covenant”,

warning that it will have a “corrosive” impact on serving personnel and undermine trust in Government. Does the hon. Member agree with that, and what steps does he think the Government need to take to rectify the situation as quickly as possible?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for raising a valid and valuable point that the Government must take forward and consider. It was not part of the Armed Forces Act 2021, but it is the type of thing that other Government Departments should be looking at. A series of questions about that have gone to the Department to see whether it is something that could be tackled. I know that the Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is here on the Front Bench, is working on that.

We must remember, however, that there is a difference between death in service and death while serving. There is an important distinction there, because to not recognise that can create a whole load of complexities that people who have served will understand probably more uniquely than others.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing this important report to us today and for the Committee’s work. North Lincolnshire council has established a physical armed forces hub dedicated to providing comprehensive support to all members of the armed forces community, offering assistance on health and housing. Doncaster city council has the veteran’s innovation fund, which provides funds of up to £300 to help with barriers that impact individuals’ wellbeing.

That is all amazing, but if our veterans do not know about it in the first place, it cannot help them. They deserve our respect and they deserve our support, particularly when they come out fighting for each and every one of us. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we go into the Easter recess, there is a need for us to make a priority of promoting the armed forces covenant in every one of our constituencies?

[Mr Bailey]

I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend is doing to support the armed forces community in Lincolnshire, particularly in Donny, which was an old and well-loved RAF station. Bringing back jobs to the community that will provide opportunities for veterans is very important. I agree with him that we all need to go out and champion the armed forces covenant because it impacts us all: if we do not get it right, we will adversely impact recruitment and retention and therefore our armed forces’ ability to serve us.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Does the hon. and gallant Member think that our Northern Ireland veterans, and specifically our former special forces members, are under attack from the very state that they served? Does he think that they deserve protection under the armed forces covenant?

[Mr Bailey]

As the hon. and gallant Member knows, this matter was not raised—correction, he indeed raised the issue and received a response from the Minister about how our veterans are being handled and the complexities involved. I do not agree that they are under attack. I believe in justice and the rule of law and that those have been equally applied. The Government’s approach is valid and honest, and it will do right by our veterans in the end.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, and indeed all members of the Defence Committee, for an invaluable report. During his contribution, he mentioned one example of a soldier moving cross-border and that causing problems with NHS appointments. Does the Committee recognise that soldiers and veterans can be disadvantaged by difference in policy between the nations of the UK? How do we think the Government can best go about addressing those problems?

[Mr Bailey]

I concur with my hon. Friend and am sure that other examples of that will be brought forward. The difference in applications across England are quite stark, but when we extend into Scotland, they can be marked and almost unjust. The only place in the world where our service personnel are applied a differential rate of taxation is in Scotland; it is in Scotland that our service personnel have different access to provision of family support, in particular childcare; and it is only when our service personnel are posted to Scotland that they receive differential treatment in terms of their education. The report highlights that and I think it will be quite a challenge for the devolved Government to say that they are they are actively meeting the armed forces covenant until those things are addressed.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Each branch of our UK armed forces faces challenges in maintaining personnel strength, with each below target and experiencing a net loss in trained personnel. Will the hon. and gallant Member share what impact the Committee felt the covenant is having on retention? How does the Committee see the covenant dovetailing with the recommendations of the Haythornthwaite review on armed forces incentivisation?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful and incisive question. The armed forces continuous attitude survey consistently shows that the armed forces feel as though the covenant is not applied. Two figures that just fall out of the report are that about 31% of our service personnel feel as though the covenant is not being applied to them in terms of the NHS, and about 40% feel the same in terms of education. The net upshot of those failings is the continual erosion of the feeling among service families and service personnel that they are being supported by the state and broader society. One in three people who enter the military do so as a result of meeting someone in the military. If we apply those figures to that number of people, we must expect that they are not passing on a good story. That will continue to erode people’s ability to join the services, which is why this is so important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I ask that the final few questions and answers be a bit shorter.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his statement on behalf of the Select Committee. I read the report this morning, and some of it makes for quite shameful reading. I want to touch on the childcare issue again. Someone serving in the military who has younger pre-school children is better off in England, but if they have older pre-school children they are better off in Scotland. This issue was raised with my directly when I recently met 3rd Battalion the Rifles, who are based in my constituency. Captain Shaun Swift was very clear that this caused friction for movement and made it harder for spouses to maintain jobs. Is this issue being raised directly with the Scottish Government, and can we encourage the UK and Scottish Governments to work together to address this issue?

[Mr Bailey]

In short, yes, the covenant is going into law. The report shows the stark contrast between governance in the UK and in Scotland.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Only last week, I spoke to a serving constituent who highlighted the issues he had had regarding the selective application of the armed forces covenant by universities. There are universities that have signed the covenant but offer no additional dispensation regarding study breaks for service personnel who are undertaking a course but are subsequently deployed. Deployments are often for 26 weeks, not including pre-deployment training or post-tour leave, whereas the maximum study break is around 16 weeks, in two terms of eight weeks. This may lead to the service person dropping out of the course and the forfeiture of their enhanced learning credits, through no fault of their own. Can I ask the Select Committee member, or indeed the Minister, to take this into account in order to facilitate the resettlement that service personnel depend on?

[Mr Bailey]

I will. As someone who was impacted thus myself, this is something I am aware of, and I will take it back to the Defence Committee for a response.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

As the MP for Portsmouth North and for the families and friends of those who currently serve and have served, I understand the sacrifices that they are making. The Committee will know that one of the main reasons for service personnel leaving the armed forces is the impact on their families. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and with the Naval Children’s Charity that the opportunity for children to receive priority in-year school admissions to secure a school place and the timely transfer of education and healthcare plans when relocating between local authorities would be welcome additions to the armed forces covenant?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for the Royal Navy community in her constituency, and she raises an apposite question that goes to the heart of an area where the armed forces covenant has been overlooked, which is education. I am sure that the Minister for Veterans and People will take this on as part of his deliberations.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

One of the report’s recommendations is that the covenant should be applied consistently across the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Member will be aware of my party’s submission, which pointed out that Op Fortitude, which is designed to support homeless ex-service personnel, is effectively non-existent in Northern Ireland and that veterans in Northern Ireland face barriers in accessing specialised healthcare services such as the veterans’ orthopaedic service at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. Is he confident that, should there be a plan to implement the covenant and legislate for it, it will cover all parts of the United Kingdom equally? Will he and the Committee continually review that situation?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that incisive point. The covenant must be consistently applied across the UK, and I think that is going to be a big challenge to the Government and to the regional Governments. It will take a review, and that is something that the Defence Committee has agreed to do once the armed forces Bill is being considered and is under way.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I commend the Defence Committee for talking to the families of service personnel as well as directly to soldiers, sailors and airmen. If I think back to the people with whom I served, they tended to be phlegmatic about making the ultimate sacrifice, but they cared a great deal about the satisfaction of their immediate family—their spouses, their partners and their children. Could the hon. Member talk a little bit more about what the Committee learned from the engagement it had with the families of service personnel about the armed forces covenant?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his question, which focuses on what the Committee learned about armed forces families and their service. What strikes me is the amount of unseen trauma the families suffer as a result of their movements. There are some very upsetting tales of how people have been forced to move around the country and not received adequate support from other Government Departments that would allow them to have a normal existence, or an existence that would be considered normal to anyone that is not in the military. It is those things that we need to go after, and it is those things that the armed forces covenant should protect. I would like to thank him for his service as well.

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to correct the record. When I asked my question, I did not refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which indicates that I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I apologise for not doing so.