Armed Forces Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, precisely because she had her name first on a set of amendments in this group. I am delighted that I did so because in the previous Parliament, when she sat on the Government Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, now the Minister, sat on the Opposition Benches and I still sat in this corner, I kept encouraging the Government to expand the Armed Forces covenant—not only in the way the previous Government sought to do, but to bring it within the purview of the Government and make it a duty on them. At Second Reading, I welcomed the provisions of the Bill. I am delighted that the previously diffident former Minister, now sitting on the Opposition Benches and speaking for His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, sees how important it is to expand the Armed Forces covenant.

The amendments brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, are valuable. Quite whether we need the level of detail in them, or how we go about them, needs to be thought about. I am sure the Minister will have all sorts of reasons why these specific amendments might not be the best way of doing it. I hope that, in his response, he can explain whether the noble Baroness is right that currently, HMRC, or the proposed defence housing service, do not come under the requirement to be under a duty to the Armed Forces covenant. If they are not under that duty, I would be happy to work with the noble Baroness to bring forward amendments on Report. Clearly, we want to make sure that the duty is on the Government and public authorities more generally. I therefore very much welcome the thrust of this suite of amendments.

I also cosigned the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, very much for the reasons she articulated. The role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is crucial in our defence. RFA “Lyme Bay” is—or has been—in the Middle East, responding to a crisis. It serves our security and defence very significantly. As the noble Baroness pointed out, those on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not civil servants in a traditional sense. They may be civilians, but the service they are giving is the sort that would seem to make coming under the purview of the Armed Forces covenant appropriate. If His Majesty’s Government disagree with that idea, could the Minister explain why and suggest ways in which it can be ensured that civilians serving on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are not suffering any detriment, which is exactly what the Armed Forces covenant is intended to countermount?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the scope of the Armed Forces covenant. I thank the noble Baronesses for the speeches they have made. I found what they said convincing, although I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister and expect I will find his reply even more convincing.

I want to take the opportunity to raise a practical example of where I hope the provisions in Clause 2, with or without the amendment, might make a difference. I suspect it will come as no surprise to the Committee that it relates to the role of the covenant in relation to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. I should mention here that, in the past, I have been a paid consultant to the Forces Pension Society, and I thank the society for providing me with a briefing on the matters I am going to raise. I should add that it was when working with the society that I became aware of the practical significance that members of the Armed Forces place on the covenant. It is significant not just as some general principle but as applying to practical situations.

By way of background, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme provides a world-class pension, and it is an important bond in the relationship between those who govern and those who serve—otherwise known as the Armed Forces covenant. It is designed to incentivise service, maximise the human element of defence’s operational effectiveness, facilitate servicepeople’s transition to civilian employment and provide for a dignified retirement. That is why I have been concerned by the recent reports of veterans being told that they must repay substantial sums of pension that they have received because those pensions were calculated incorrectly at some point in the past. The issue has received considerable coverage on the BBC, and in the Times, the Telegraph, the Express and the it Paper.

Please bear with me in explaining the problem, because the scheme’s administrative arrangements are a little complicated. Defence Business Services is responsible for the scheme through Veterans UK. It has contracted in turn Sopra Steria to deliver the pensions. Sopra Steria has in turn sub-subcontracted Equiniti as its paymaster, and the system is overseen by the Armed Forces Pension Board, supporting the Secretary of State for Defence as the scheme manager. There are clear doubts about how Defence Business Services, Veterans UK, Sopra Steria and Equiniti should be held to account. There are other problems, but I want to highlight the disappointing pattern of overpayments in areas such as pension sharing on divorce, early departure payments, guaranteed minimum pensions and national insurance modifications. Between 1,000 and 2,000 members have received such overpayments, which indicates a lack of rigour in calculation, inadequate training, a lack of oversight and paucity of quality assurance.

I will give the Committee two examples. I will not name the individuals involved, but the circumstances illustrate the problem. One is a 72 year-old veteran who served in the Army for 31 years, reaching the rank of warrant officer class 1, but who faces having to repay a pension overpayment of £37,500. This arose from four separate errors in the calculation of his pension. The second example is a 70 year-old former RAF flight lieutenant who was overpaid by £32,000. He queried the increase when he first received it but was told it was correct. Years later, he has now been told that there was indeed an error, and it is he, not the administrator, who is liable for repayment. It is worth noting that there are many cases with higher overpayments, but these cases illustrate the complex nature of the problems members face.

80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Friday 9th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

It is right that we undertake this debate to pay tribute to those who defended our freedoms in the First and Second World Wars. We must remember and honour them, and use this day to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE Day and, shortly, on 14 August, VJ Day. We have heard some magnificent speeches, all of which have been of a high quality. Many consisted of people relaying their personal experiences, many of which have been moving.

I was there. I was less than a year old at the time, and not aware of it. Subsequently, my parents never really talked about the war. That is the experience of a number of noble Lords.

The point I want to make in the context of this debate, which has already been made by my noble friends Lady Warwick of Undercliffe and Lord Anderson of Swansea, is that this was a total war: everyone was involved. Total war refers to a type of warfare in which a country mobilises all its resources—economic, industrial, civilian and military—to defeat an enemy. In total war, the distinction between civilian and military targets is blurred and the entire society is involved in the war effort. In World War II, the concept of total war was fully realised in the United Kingdom; there was a mobilisation of the entire population in the war effort.

This is not to downplay the exceptional bravery of those at the military front line but, in the Second World War, all of us were on the front line, in a real sense, on the home front. Here in the United Kingdom, we conscripted millions of soldiers but also mobilised civilians to work in factories, grow food and support the effort. I thank my noble friend for mentioning the Bevin Boys, conscripted to work in the mines, and the women directed to work in the Women’s Land Army.

We must also remember that civilians were targeted and that cities were bombed deliberately to destroy morale and infrastructure. I am not seeking here to express any judgment, but in the war there was the bombing of London—the Blitz—but also of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point I make is that, in that war, we were all on the front line. As a trivial example, I cannot forget that, shortly after I was born, we were under attack from V1 and V2 rockets. I was evacuated with my mother to Wales, out of their reach.

The third aspect of total war was industrial and economic control. Governments took control of production. For example, here in Britain, we introduced widespread rationing of food and goods. Total war in World War II meant that every aspect of society was directed towards achieving victory, no matter the cost. Everyone was fighting; those in the forces and those on the home front were fighting for victory.

We achieved victory. The biggest achievement in western Europe has been the absence of any significant war in western Europe in the last 80 years, compared to the 80 years before that when there were at least six major wars. This was a massive change and a victory for the settlement that was reached after the Second World War.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, whenever an item appears on the Order Paper with the word “pensions” in, it will always get my undivided and close attention. I obviously read the papers for this Bill and put my name down to make a few remarks, not totally uncoincidentally along with the following Bill, which we will be considering in more detail. There is not a lot to be said; little more than thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, for his efforts on this Bill. But I also wanted—there is a little more to be said—to press the Minister. The widening of the scope of these committees is clearly important. I very much hope that they will take the opportunity to look at an issue that has not been given the attention that it should have had up to now: post-traumatic stress disorder within the military and veterans. I take the opportunity of having the Minister’s attention to ask her to indicate that it is a key issue that will be considered in the ongoing work of these committees. I fully support the Bill and I am sure it will get the support of the House.

Ukraine

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want first to say how much I have valued the opportunity to listen to your Lordships’ House and gain from the experience and profound knowledge of what has taken place. I join everyone in being clear that Putin’s attack on Ukraine is an unprovoked and unjustifiable violation of international law, for which we hope he will in due time be held accountable. It breaks multiple treaties and international commitments, including the founding principles of the UN charter, which we all support. The attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy.

We have no choice but to support the Ukrainian people, so our job today is to make that support clear and unambiguous. Conclusions on what lessons can be learned from how we arrived at this situation can be left until later but, in offering our support, it is crucial that we are honest with the Ukrainian people and with our own people. We need to tell people about the costs that will be involved. What price are we prepared to pay? What price are the people of the United Kingdom prepared to pay to support Ukraine? There is no doubt that there will be a cost, so let us not pretend otherwise. I very much welcomed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who highlighted that issue. Effective sanctions will impact on us as well as on the Putin regime. They will have a cost. A financial cost will fall on all of us, and not just from even higher energy costs; there will also be an impact on jobs and individual incomes as effective sanctions impact on us as well as Putin.

I want to make it clear that I believe we should be prepared to meet these costs in the interest of freedom and democracy, but they must be shared fairly and the heaviest burden must fall on those with the deepest pockets. What this requires is redistribution of the burden, and this can be achieved only by higher taxes on those who can afford to pay the most to help those with the least. We should look to those who have profited from the Covid pandemic; not least, we should look at the oil and energy companies that stand to make even greater profits from the new crisis. The case for a windfall tax is even more compelling. When the Government talk about effective sanctions, they have to make clear that they are prepared to will the means as well as the ends, while protecting those least able to pay.

There is, however, another cost that we might be asked to pay: a human cost in terms of death and injury. Without taking this issue too far today, I have considerable concerns in this area, particularly given Putin’s unambiguous threat to use nuclear weapons. We have treaty obligations that we must fulfil but we need deep and careful thought before we go any further. History teaches us that it is all too easy to stumble into conflict with devastating consequences.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I was not able to speak on Monday, which might have been my more natural home, but I am pleased to speak today and refer to two issues under this general heading.

First, the gracious Speech states:

“My Ministers will implement the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.”


I am with the review where it refers to

“sustaining strategic advantage though science and technology”.

I am glad that, in her introduction, the Minister referred to soft power and the importance of science in maintaining our security. But the review goes on to refer to “systematic competition” between states and claims somewhat tautologically that countries which establish a leading role in critical and emerging technologies will be at the forefront of global leadership. We know the importance of science, medical science in particular, from the acknowledged success in developing and delivering the Covid-19 vaccine, but the emphasis on national competition in this context is simply wrong. Scientists compete to be first, of course, but in this context their nationality is irrelevant. We know this from the vaccine programme. Co-operation between actors public and private from many different parts of the world has been crucial to its success: a truly international effort in which international co-operation has been the foundation, not competition.

Unfortunately, this reflects the Prime Minister’s “global Britain” rhetoric—just sound and bluster with no substance. When he attributed the vaccine success to capitalism and greed, he was wrong. The idea that private ingenuity and naked competition produced the vaccines is a misleading fantasy. The infrastructure that produced the Covid-19 vaccines and that helps to secure our greater security was nurtured in publicly funded universities, public institutes and heavily subsidised private labs.

Secondly, I refer to the statement that:

“Measures will be introduced to provide National Insurance contribution relief for employers of veterans”.


This will be provided for in the National Insurance Contributions Bill currently before the Commons, and which this House will consider in due course. It is far from clear from any of the published material what exactly this concession is expected to achieve. How effective in promoting employment among veterans is it likely to be? It is therefore right that, initially at least, it is being introduced for a limited period, up to April 2024. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that proper research will be undertaken as to its effectiveness before it is extended. Crucially, does it lead to a net increase in employment among veterans and, to the extent that there are more jobs, what sort of employment?

Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that this is just relief for the employer in terms of secondary class 1 contributions and not released to the veterans themselves. Perhaps it should also be made clear that the relief is only for a single year. What we are talking about in cash terms, in respect of someone on median earnings, is a one-off saving to an employer of about £3,000: a substantial sum, but not that substantial if it is intended to provide a job for 10 or more years. We also need to know whether the payments will lead to permanent and not short-term employment.

Finally, it would be appropriate for the Government to give an assurance that they remain committed to providing adequate pensions for those who made their career as a member of the Armed Forces. It would be wrong if this is a harbinger of the intention to expect our veterans to rely more than they currently do on further employment.

War Widows Pensions

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I pay tribute to her commitment and passion on this issue and I understand her frustration. It might help her if I explain the nature of the complexity. Quite simply, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to make retrospective payments by government to individuals. That has been an established position and I think that many Members of your Lordships’ Chamber who have been Ministers will understand that. It means that, although I, the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff all personally want to try to find a solution to this, we are not able to act unilaterally. We are investigating a number of options, but as yet none of these has been confirmed as avoiding the challenges to which I have referred.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, what bearing does the Minister think the Armed Forces covenant has on this issue? The covenant, quite rightly, says:

“Families … play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.”


So our moral obligation is not just to members of the Armed Forces; it is also to their families. Times and attitudes change. Rules from the past are no longer regarded as acceptable. We should not let concern about retrospection be a barrier to what we all now regard as the right thing to do.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Of course, I reaffirm that the Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those who remarried and cohabited before 1 April 2015. But the Ministry of Defence is not able to act unilaterally because, in doing that, it could well compromise the position of other government departments and it might unintentionally interfere with or prejudice active litigation in which other departments are involved. That is why I thought it important to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the nature of the complexity. This is not something that the current Government have dreamed up and it is not an artificial obstruction that the Ministry of Defence has created; it is, I am afraid, the consequence of established policy covering such matters as payments when a request is made to make these retrospectively.