The Committee conducted a survey between 22 March 2021 and 5 April 2021. The survey was public, and anyone could respond to it, with 3,337 submissions received. Below is a list of questions asked in the survey. Later sections of this annex contain an analysis of the responses to the qualitative questions (asking the respondent to type in their answer) and a summary of all quantitative responses (asking respondents to choose an answer from a list of options). For a full anonymised data set, please email afbillcom@parliament.uk.
1. Which of the following best describes you
2. What is your current rank? Or what was the highest rank you achieved while serving?
3. Where are you currently based?
4. The Armed Forces Bill, as currently drafted, would introduce a “duty to have due regard” to the Armed Forces Covenant. Do you think this will help current and former service personnel and their families the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant?
If the respondent answered no to question 4:
4A. Why do you think this won’t help current and former service personnel and their families receive the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant?
5. Is the Armed Forces Bill’s focus on healthcare, education and housing matters appropriate?
6. Other than healthcare, education and housing matters, which of the following do you think should be included in the Armed Forces Covenant provisions in the Bill (Please tick all that apply):
7. Do you think this Bill will help you address practical problems you might face during or after your service?
If the respondent answered no to question 7:
7A. Why do you think the Bill will not help address practical problems you may face during or after your service?
8. Do you think the Armed Forces Covenant is applied evenly across service personnel, no matter where they serve or are based?
If the respondent answered no to question 8:
8A. Who do you think the Armed Forces Covenant isn’t applied evenly across service personnel based on where they serve?
9. Are the specified bodies listed in the Bill in respect of housing, education and healthcare correct/appropriate?
If the respondent answered no to question 9:
9A. How do you think the list of specified bodies in the Bill should be expanded or changed to include more public bodies and other stakeholders?
10. Will the provisions in this Bill on the Armed Forces Covenant impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families?
If the respondent answered yes to question 10:
10A. How will the provisions in this Bill on the Armed Forces Covenant impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families?
11. Do you think the Bill as currently drafted will improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces?
If the respondent answered no to question 11:
11A. Why do you think that the Bill as currently drafted will not improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces?
12. The Bill seeks to make changes to the service complaint appeals process. Do you think the Bill as currently drafted strikes the right balance between ensuring fair access to appeals and ensuring complaints are handled efficiently?
13. The Bill seeks to reduce the time limit in which an appeal can be made from 6 weeks to 2 weeks. Are there enough safeguards in place to ensure those who cannot meet the new time limits get fair treatment?
14. Please let us know if there is anything else you think we should consider when scrutinising the Bill?
The Committee conducted a survey between 22 March 2021 and 5 April 2021. The survey was public, and anyone could respond to it, with 3,337 submissions received. Below is an analysis of the questions in the survey where respondents could type in their own answers rather than selecting from a list of options. An overview of the remaining questions in the survey can be found towards the end of the annex.
The majority of respondents stated that they were veterans (2,255), based in England (2,678) and non-commissioned (2,153). Responses were analysed thematically using NVivo (Release 1), a qualitative software analysis software tool. Thematic analysis involves systematically identifying patterns within qualitative data through reduction, abstraction and re-structuring, to identify recurring topics and ideas that come up repeatedly. Themes were initially identified using the automated insights tool in Nvivo. This uses machine-based algorithms to analyse the content and sentence structure and detects significant noun phrases to identify the most frequently occurring themes. The process collects the themes and counts their mentions across all the data in the files being processed and filters themes to show groups that represent the largest proportion of the content. This was used as the starting point to code the data and undertake more detailed thematic analysis.
The survey responses received are likely to demonstrate ‘self-selection’ or ‘volunteer’ bias, whereby they overrepresent individuals who have strong opinions or interests. As such, this report is intended to summarise and reflect the key perspectives of the individuals as outlined in the survey responses received and should not be interpreted as representative of all individuals.
Nearly four times as many respondents reported that the introduction of a “duty to have due regard” would help current and former service personnel and their families receive the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant, compared to those who said that it would not. For respondents who did not think that it would help, the key issue was that a duty to have due regard was perceived as ‘lip service’ and too vague and open to interpretation to result in meaningful change.
Nearly three times as many respondents reported that the Bill would help them to address practical problems they might face during or after their service, compared to those who said that it would not. For respondents who did not think that it would help, one key issue centred on perceptions that the Bill would not result in more effective support because organisations had either not heard of the Covenant or enforcement of it was inadequate. Another key issue was a perception that the remit of the Bill was not sufficient to address some of the key practical problems faced by personnel after service. This includes support in accessing employment and access to physical and mental health care. Respondents noted that it would not address inequalities in access to benefits and the immigration status of foreign and Commonwealth service personnel and veterans. Respondents also noted that it would not provide support for veterans who leave the UK or address practical problems faced by longer-term veterans, including access to welfare benefits when in receipt of an Armed Forces pension.
More respondents reported that they thought the Armed Forces Covenant is applied evenly across service personnel than that it was not, although the majority of respondents reported that they were not sure. Respondents who did not think that it was applied evenly reported a ‘postcode lottery’ across the UK, especially in relation to access to NHS and Local Authority services. Another key theme was that respondents thought that it was not applied evenly to foreign and Commonwealth veterans. In addition, respondents noted that it was not applied evenly to lower-ranking and junior personnel, and to serving personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.
Three times as many respondents reported that the specified bodies listed in the Bill in respect of housing, education and healthcare are correct/appropriate, compared to those who reported that they were not, although the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure. The key suggestion put forward by respondents was that the list should be expanded to include more–or all–UK and devolved central government departments, agencies and public bodies as well as local government. Respondents also called for increased education about the Armed Forces Covenant to ensure that public bodies and other stakeholders were aware of what it requires. Some respondents also called for listed bodies to be incentivised or compelled to fulfil their obligations. Many respondents called for ‘champions’ or dedicated roles within Local Authorities or central government departments and agencies to ensure accountability and to ensure that the needs of serving personnel and veterans are taken into account. Some respondents suggested that there should be increased engagement with, or employment of, veterans by public bodies to increase understanding of the issues that they face. Many respondents noted a need for the list to include specialist bodies and groups supporting veterans, as well as GPs, private landlords and housing associations and other organisations providing services used by veterans and their families, including mental health support. A few respondents noted that it should be expanded to include relevant bodies on immigration if the Bill was amended to include foreign and Commonwealth veterans.
More respondents reported that they thought the provisions in the Bill impact differently on Serving personnel, veterans, and their families than did not, although the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure. Many responses were highly positive about the overall potential impact of the Bill, reporting that they thought it would provide help and support for serving personnel, veterans and their families. Many respondents noted that they thought the Bill would provide less support for Veterans. Some respondents reported that they thought it would provide less benefit for Reservists and some highlighted that it would not provide support to foreign and Commonwealth serving personnel and veterans.
Nearly double as many respondents reported that the Bill will improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces, compared to those that reported that it would not. However, the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure. For respondents who did not think that it would improve the system, this was because they thought that serious crime should be handled by civil police, not military police, because the civilian system was perceived as more efficient and appropriate for dealing with cases of this nature.
1047 respondents answered the question inviting them to comment on anything else they would like the Committee to consider when scrutinising the Bill. Comments centred on the need for:
Some respondents called for more support for veterans who settle outside the UK, better support and more legal protection for Armed Forces personnel and veterans, and for reassessment of pension provisions for veterans who left the service before 1975.
Responding to the question on whether the introduction of a “duty to have due regard” to the Armed Forces Covenant in the Armed Forces Bill (as currently drafted), would help current and former service personnel and their families receive the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant, nearly four times as many respondents reported that it would help (1961), compared to those who reported that it would not help (503).
Of those who answered that it would not help, 483 respondents answered the follow-up question on why they thought it would not help current and former service personnel and their families receive the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant. For these respondents, the key issue was that a duty to have due regard was perceived as optional ‘lip service’ and too vague and open to interpretation to result in meaningful change.
Box 1: Comments from the survey on introducing a duty to have due regard “A “duty to have due regard” implies optional compliance. Consideration should be given to having explicit compliance with certain aspects (service personnel not being disadvantaged as a result of service) and other aspects that are optional.” “Due regard is too non-specific - it can be regarded, then ignored.” “It’s not practical or measurable. What is the measurement of effectiveness for proving someone has or has not show[n] “duty to have due regard”?” “Duty to have due regard is not duty of care.” “It’s not strong enough and just plays lip service without making any meaningful difference.” |
Responding to the question on whether the Bill (as currently drafted) would help them to address practical problems they might face during or after their service, nearly three times as many respondents reported that it would help (1461), compared to those who reported that it would not help (545).
Of those who answered that it would not help, 495 respondents answered the follow-up question on why they thought it would not help address practical problems they might face during or after their service. For these respondents, one key issue centred on perceptions that the Bill would not result in more effective support because organisations had either not heard of the Covenant or enforcement of it was inadequate.
Box 2: Comments from the survey on the Armed Forces Covenant helping those that it applies to in tackling practical problems “Because it may be enshrined in law but local authorities, health services etc will ignore it and say that they base their support on need and no other category.” “Because in some parts of the country nobody’s heard of it.” “Because when you leave the government forgets about you.” “Authorities sign up to the covenant yet just pay lip service.” |
Another key issue was a perception that the remit of the Bill was not sufficient to address some of the practical problems faced after service. This includes support in accessing employment and access to physical and mental health care. Respondents noted that it would not address inequalities in access to benefits and the immigration status of foreign and Commonwealth service personnel and veterans. Respondents also noted that it would not provide support for veterans who leave the UK or address practical problems faced by longer-term veterans, including access to welfare benefits when in receipt of an Armed Forces pension.
Box 3: Practical problems faced after service “Job market changed, skill sets required different.” “We need help with employment with an engaging proactive job service.” “Needs to address indefinite leave to remain for Commonwealth service personnel without visa charges.” “One major one it [is] lacking is the discrimination that service personnel suffer when leaving the Armed Forces when seeking new employment.” “That a war pension should not be taking into account when things like housing and council tax benefits are calculated.” “Again, these are all words I’ve heard before from various UK governments. On top of that, I live in Australia and there appears to be very little for veterans who leave the UK.” “As it does not compel action, and it does not protect the armed forces, in particular to pension rights, immigration rights for those who have served but come from another country.” “It may help someone leaving the Services but what about the veteran that has fallen on hardship later in life? … I am not entitled to any benefits because I have a Service pension.” |
Responding to the question on whether the Armed Forces Covenant is applied evenly across service personnel, no matter where they serve or are based, more respondents answered no (1170) than yes (813), although the majority of respondents reported that they were not sure (1292).
Of those who answered that they did not think that it was applied evenly across service personnel based on where they serve, 1065 respondents answered the follow-up question on who they thought it was not applied evenly to. One key theme was that respondents thought that it was not applied evenly across the UK. Respondents referred frequently to a ‘postcode lottery’, especially in relation to access to NHS and Local Authority services.
Box 4: Application of the Armed Forces Covenant “There is always a postcode lottery in how obligations are interpreted.” “It’s variable region by region and depending upon the local authority.” “Postcode lottery - varying approaches to the covenant across different regions.” |
Another key theme was that respondents thought that it was not applied evenly to foreign and Commonwealth veterans. In addition, respondents noted that it was not applied evenly to lower-ranking and junior personnel, and to serving personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.
Box 5: Applications of the Armed Forces Covenant by seniority “It is definitely biased towards UK citizens, leaving commonwealth soldiers outside of the coverage of the covenant once leaving service.” “It doesn’t address the inequalities faces by commonwealth soldiers.” “Northern Ireland - where there are hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans.” “The Covenant is generally administered by local authorities and they are inconsistent in their quality. I’m addition some doctors [don’t] agree with the health care aspects of the Covenant and will not support it.” “Foreign and commonwealth soldiers and Northern Ireland veterans and serving soldiers.” “Junior ranks; Gurkhas and Commonwealth personnel.” “The officers get easily preferential treatment with more time to access courses. Junior ranks are far too often denied time and resources during resettlement.” “Officers get the best of it. Junior ranks get thrown to the wolves.” |
Responding to the question on whether the specified bodies listed in the Bill in respect of housing, education and healthcare to have a duty of due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant are correct/appropriate, three times as many respondents reported that they were correct/appropriate (913), compared to those who reported that they were not (305). However, the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure (2034).
720 respondents answered the question on how the list of specified bodies in the Bill should be expanded or changed to include more public bodies and other stakeholders. The key suggestion put forward by respondents was that the list should be expanded to include more–or all–UK and devolved central government departments, agencies and public bodies as well as local government.
Box 6: Specified bodies to have duty of due regard list to be expanded or changed to “All public services provided by central and local government.” “All local government bodies providing services or functions for the members of the Armed Forces and their families.” “It should be mandated that all public bodies are included, better advertising for non-public stakeholders is a must.” |
Respondents also called for increased education about the Armed Forces Covenant to ensure that public bodies and other stakeholders were aware of what it requires and some respondents called for listed bodies to be incentivised or compelled to fulfil their obligations. Many respondents called for ‘champions’ or dedicated roles within Local Authorities or central government departments and agencies to ensure that the needs of serving personnel and veterans were taken into account and for accountability. Some respondents suggested that there should be increased engagement with, or employment of, veterans by public bodies to increase understanding of the issues that they face.
Box 7: How to increase awareness of the Armed Forces Covenant and the responsibilities on relevant bodies under it “More education of the Covenant is required - my GP practice has not heard of it and do not understand their responsibility to former service personnel with pre-existing medical issues.” “They need to be educated to actually provide the priority treatment … housing officers, GP’s, hospitals, etc don’t have a clue.” “The public bodies are listed, what is not listed is a system for enforcement or appeal.” “By putting forward the benefits of assisting ex and serving personnel and incentivising various bodies to fulfil their obligations under the covenant.” “By compelling public bodies and other stakeholders to engage in the programme.” “Better education of public bodies and other stakeholders, further strength to the implementation.” “City councils should have a Veterans officer.” “Every department to have an armed forces ambassador.” “Ex-service persons who have experienced these issues should be integrated into the public bodies and stakeholders.” |
Many respondents noted a need for the list to include specialist bodies and groups supporting veterans, as well as GPs, private landlords and housing associations and other organisations providing services used by veterans and their families, including mental health support. A few respondents noted that it should be expanded to include relevant bodies on immigration, if the Bill was amended to include foreign and Commonwealth veterans.
Box 8: Additions to the list of specified bodies to have a duty of due regard to the Armed Forces Covenant “Include more public bodies and stakeholders, including private landlords and Housing associations, and include employment agencies.” “Any mental health organisations. Any drug/alcohol services required.” “Include groups who are supporting those suffering from mental health and homeless veterans.” |
Responding to the question on whether the provisions in the Bill on the Armed Forces Covenant impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families, more respondents answered yes (795) than no (484), although the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure (1944).
522 respondents answered the question on how the provisions in the Bill would impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families. Many responses were highly positive about the overall potential impact of the Bill, reporting that they thought it would provide help and support for serving personnel, veterans and their families.
Box 9: Overall impact of the Armed Forces Bill 2020 “If the Bill is passed, then current and future service personnel will feel secure in their roles knowing the country will continue to support them when they have left the Armed Forces.” “It will help and support all serving personnel, veterans and they families.” |
Many respondents noted that they thought the Bill would provide less support for Veterans. Some respondents reported that they thought it would provide less benefit for Reservists and some highlighted that it would not provide support to foreign and Commonwealth serving personnel and veterans.
Box 10: Different impact of the Armed Forces Bill “Veterans will be impacted less than serving personnel.” “Because Veterans issues differ vastly than serving personnel.” “Reservists are less likely to benefit from this.” “It does nothing for Serving Personnel who are not British Citizens.” |
Responding to the question on whether the Bill, as currently drafted, will improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces, nearly double as many respondents (934) reported that it would, compared to those that reported that it would not (501). However, the vast majority of respondents reported that they were not sure (1761).
Of those who answered that they did not think that it would improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces, 388 respondents answered the follow-up question on why they thought that it would not improve it. For these respondents, the key issue was that they thought that serious crime should be handled by civil police, not military police, because the civilian system was perceived as more efficient and appropriate for dealing with cases of this nature.
Box 11: Handling of serious crime within the Armed Forces “Serious crimes within the UK should be dealt with by civilian police forces. They are experienced and have the in-depth knowledge required by such investigations.” “Because it doesn’t put Armed Forces personnel under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Offences with a direct civilian equivalent (rape, sexual assault, theft etc) should be investigate by civilian police and prosecuted through the CPS.” “The training of service police differs from civilian police and military requirements could influence methods of investigation.” “They should be referred to civilian police who regularly deal with these cases. Military Police in my experience often make mistakes in serious criminal proceedings that lead to incorrect handling of evidence/mistrials.” “Crimes should be generically referred to Civilian Police especially if assault or sexual.” “All matters should be handed over to the civilian police to investigate so it is dealt with appropriately but more importantly in a timely matter.” |
1047 respondents answered the question inviting them to comment on anything else they would like the committee to consider when scrutinising the Bill. Comments centred on the need for:
Box 12: Additional comments “Provide improved aftercare for service personnel that suffer mental health issues as a result of military service.” “Dedicated mental health care for veterans.” “More focus on mental health provision, it isn’t just about PTSD, long serving personnel really struggle to adjust back into civvy Street. More should be done to help homeless ex services personnel.” “Please ensure long serving personnel receive good education and training for civilian life including handling money well before they leave service before they leave.” “Try looking at homelessness in the veteran community try implementing an actual fast track system for mental health sufferers and educate GPs.” “Whilst housing is part of the bill, specific emphasis needs to be put in place to address the high number of veterans who are rough sleepers and falling through the cracks. In addition, although healthcare is included, there is a massive shortage of mental healthcare capacity in the NHS and veterans in crisis should not have to rely on charities to find and provide appropriate care.” “Please make more people aware of it, especially health authorities, I was screaming blue black and white trying to get appropriate health care for my dad, or even just someone to listen, I felt failed by the whole system.” “Transferable skills for the civilian world for service personnel.” “Housing, equality for overseas/commonwealth veterans, mental health support, employment support.” “The issues have been identified, a Bill has been proposed and until it is tried and measured against previous performance how can we tell it will work?” “All commonwealth service personnel & their families should be offered the right to UK citizens on retirement.” |
Some respondents called for more support for veterans who settle outside the UK, better support and more legal protection for Armed Forces personnel and veterans, and for reassessment of pension provisions for veterans who left the service before 1975.
Box 13: Further additional comments “Help for those ex service personnel who have settle outside the UK.” “Pensions for pre 1975 serving personnel.” “When service personnel are sent into an area to do their jobs they should not be prosecuted for doing what the government sent them to do.” |
Word cloud showing the most frequently occurring words in the responses to the closed question, ‘Other than healthcare, education and housing matters, which of the following do you think should be included in the Armed Forces Covenant provisions in the Bill (Please tick all that apply)’, n=3,316. Frequently occurring words are in larger fonts. Three different designs are included of the same data. To give an indication of the frequency of commonly occurring words, ‘pensions’ = 2,521 and ‘immigration’–1,311.
Which of the following best describes you? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran of the Armed Forces |
2,255 |
67.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Currently serving member of the Armed Forces |
718 |
21.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
None of the above |
150 |
4.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Direct family of a veteran |
132 |
4.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Direct family of current Service personnel |
67 |
2.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Civilian subject to service law |
15 |
0.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
What is your current rank? Or what was the highest rank you achieved while serving? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Commissioned |
465 |
15.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Non-commissioned |
2,153 |
72.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
355 |
11.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
2,973 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Where are you currently based? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
England |
2,678 |
80.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Scotland |
183 |
5.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Outside of the UK |
179 |
5.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wales |
158 |
4.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Northern Ireland |
139 |
4.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Armed Forces Bill, as currently drafted, would introduce a “duty to have due regard” to the Armed Forces Covenant. Do you think this will help current and former service personnel and their families the support set out in the Armed Forces Covenant? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
1,961 |
58.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
868 |
26.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
503 |
15.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
5 |
0.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Is the Armed Forces Bill’s focus on healthcare, education and housing matters appropriate? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
2,115 |
63.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
641 |
19.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
562 |
16.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
19 |
0.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other than healthcare, education and housing matters, which of the following do you think should be included in the Armed Forces Covenant provisions in the Bill (Please tick all that apply): |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pensions |
2,517 |
75.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Care |
2,312 |
69.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Employment |
2,269 |
68.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Benefits |
1,930 |
57.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Compensation |
1,606 |
48.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Support with the criminal justice system |
1,519 |
45.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Immigration |
1,307 |
39.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other |
263 |
7.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you think this Bill will help you address practical problems you might face during or after your service? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
1,461 |
43.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,294 |
38.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
545 |
16.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
37 |
1.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you think the Armed Forces Covenant is applied evenly across service personnel, no matter where they serve or are based? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
813 |
24.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,292 |
38.7% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
1,170 |
35.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
62 |
1.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Are the specified bodies listed in the Bill in respect of housing, education |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
913 |
27.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
2,034 |
61.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
305 |
9.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
85 |
2.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Will the provisions in this Bill on the Armed Forces Covenant impact differently on Serving personnel (both Regulars and Reservists), veterans, and their families? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
795 |
23.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,944 |
58.3% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
484 |
14.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
114 |
3.4% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you think the Bill as currently drafted will improve the way in which serious crimes are handled in the Armed Forces? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
934 |
28.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,761 |
52.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
501 |
15.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
141 |
4.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Bill seeks to make changes to the service complaint appeals process. Do you think the Bill as currently drafted strikes the right balance between ensuring fair access to appeals and ensuring complaints are handled efficiently? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
1,070 |
32.1% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,465 |
43.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
620 |
18.6% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
182 |
5.5% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Bill seeks to reduce the time limit in which an appeal can be made from 6 weeks to 2 weeks. Are there enough safeguards in place to ensure those who cannot meet the new time limits get fair treatment? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answer |
Respondents |
Percentage |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes |
507 |
15.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
I am not sure |
1,160 |
34.8% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
No |
1,507 |
45.2% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(blank) |
163 |
4.9% |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Total |
3,337 |
100.0% |
Published: 22 April 2021 Site information Accessibility statement