🙏 Defence committee

• The Defence Committee presented its fourth report on the armed forces covenant, examining its current effectiveness and suggesting improvements for upcoming legislation.

• The covenant aims to ensure that service members, their families, and veterans are not disadvantaged in civilian life due to their service.

• The report was based on feedback from serving personnel, their families, and veterans, revealing a mixed picture of the covenant’s impact.

• Positive stories were outnumbered by negative experiences, such as one case where a service member was placed at the back of an NHS treatment queue after relocating, despite initial assurances.

• The Government plans to extend the covenant’s scope through the Armed Forces Bill next year, which the Committee supports, suggesting it should apply to all Government Departments.

• The Committee recommends that alongside new legislation, a comprehensive implementation plan is needed to ensure consistent application across the UK.

• Key issues identified include lack of awareness, poor understanding, and varying local application of the covenant, leading to unequal experiences for service members.

• The report highlighted specific areas needing attention, such as employment, social care, welfare, and immigration, especially for non-UK passport holders.

• Concerns were raised about the treatment of non-UK personnel and their families, including their inability to work or access social security during immigration status decisions.

• MPs discussed the need for better awareness and promotion of the covenant at local levels, citing examples of councils providing support but stressing the need for veterans to know about these resources.

• The Committee acknowledged regional disparities, particularly in Scotland, regarding taxation, family support, and education, which impact service members differently based on their location.

• Issues such as childcare, education, and healthcare transitions were raised, especially when service members move between UK regions, highlighting the need for consistent policy application.

• The covenant’s role in military retention was discussed, noting that dissatisfaction with its application could affect recruitment and retention rates.

• Suggestions were made to improve the covenant, including priority in-year school admissions for service children and better support for veterans in higher education.

• The Committee committed to reviewing the covenant’s implementation across the UK, ensuring it is applied equally in all regions, including Northern Ireland.

The session rated a 1 for disagreement primarily due to the absence of direct confrontations or significant disagreements among the members during the parliamentary session. The session largely involved a Select Committee statement by Mr Calvin Bailey, followed by a series of questions from Members of Parliament on the subject of the armed forces covenant report. Throughout the session, Mr Bailey responded to questions in a manner that was cooperative and focused on addressing the concerns raised by the MPs, rather than engaging in any form of disagreement or debate.

Examples of the lack of disagreement include: - Paul Holmes (Con) asked about the role of the Armed Forces Commissioner, and Mr Bailey responded by acknowledging the need for measures of success and the potential role of the Commissioner, without any contention. - Alex Baker (Lab) raised the issue of non-UK personnel and their families, and Mr Bailey agreed and emphasized the need for addressing this issue, showing alignment rather than disagreement. - David Reed (Con) questioned the application of inheritance tax on armed forces death-in-service payments, and Mr Bailey acknowledged the concern and noted that it was being considered, again without any disagreement. - Lee Pitcher (Lab) discussed the promotion of the armed forces covenant, and Mr Bailey agreed on the importance of this, reinforcing the point rather than opposing it. - Lincoln Jopp (Con) asked about the treatment of Northern Ireland veterans, and while Mr Bailey did not agree with the notion that they were under attack, he did so in a manner that respected the rule of law and the government’s approach, without escalating into a disagreement. - Graeme Downie (Lab) highlighted issues with cross-border policy differences, and Mr Bailey concurred and elaborated on the challenges, showing agreement. - Vikki Slade (LD) asked about the impact of the covenant on retention, and Mr Bailey provided statistics and agreed on the importance of addressing these issues. - Dr Scott Arthur (Lab) raised concerns about childcare issues, and Mr Bailey confirmed that these were being addressed, showing no disagreement. - Ben Obese-Jecty (Con) discussed the selective application of the covenant by universities, and Mr Bailey agreed to take this back to the Committee, indicating cooperation. - Amanda Martin (Lab) and Robin Swann (UUP) raised issues about education and healthcare, respectively, and Mr Bailey agreed with their points and the need for action. - Richard Foord (LD) asked about the Committee’s engagement with families, and Mr Bailey responded by sharing insights and agreeing on the importance of supporting families.

Overall, the session was characterized by a collaborative approach to discussing the armed forces covenant, with MPs from different parties raising concerns and Mr Bailey responding in a way that acknowledged and supported these concerns, leading to a low level of disagreement.