Select committee: Defence Committee

Defence contribution to the UK’s pandemic response

Closed Opened 12 May 2020 Closed 9 Jul 2021 7 recommendations
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
This inquiry will focus on the Ministry of Defence’s and the Armed Forces’ contribution to the UK’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It will: assess the MoD’s planning and preparedness for a pandemic understand how the Armed Forces have supported civilian authorities during the pandemic evaluate the effectiveness of the specific actions and activities undertaken by military and civilian personnel explore how the MoD has ensured that potential adversaries have not taken advantage of the need to focus on the pandemic response Read the call for evidence for more detail about the inquiry .

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 12 May 2020.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response on 25 March 2021.

The government's response

Published 9 July 2021. The deadline was 25 May 2021.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government notes the Committee's recommendations on the pandemic review and on early use of Defence capabilities, describes Defence's role as supporting, and commits to a formal lessons identification process.

  • On the Committee's conclusion about pandemic preparedness and COBRA, the government says only that it "notes the Committee's recommendation".
  • On civilian agencies, it says Defence support is channelled through the MACA process, where "viable non-Defence solutions" to a request will be identified.
  • On recognition and pay, it says base pay recommendations come from the pay review bodies and HM Treasury guidance, and that Defence is "bound by the Government's public sector pay pause". Medallic recognition is being led by the Cabinet Office, with "no further details" available.
  • The Ministry of Defence has begun a formal lessons identification process and will "support any future Government-led reviews".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions 7 shown

Recommendation 1

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
From the evidence it is clear that there was a disconnect between the assessment of the threat of an infectious disease pandemic (flu or otherwise) and the preparations for such an event occurring. Subsequent government actions (such as the re-drawing of crisis machinery and the need to urgently procure large supplies of PPE) suggest that both organisational and practical preparations were not sufficiently mature. It is inexplicable that COBRA should have met only four times between 24 January and 2 March. This disconnect and its causes should be addressed at any future public enquiry into the UK’s response to the pandemic.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 2

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
Civilian agencies will inevitably require assistance in a crisis of this scale and there should be no stigma in seeking help from the Armed Forces. However, it is clear that preparations for a non-man-made threat such as an infectious disease pandemic were afforded less priority than issues such as terrorism, despite being assessed as having both high likelihood and high impact in the National Risk Register. The Government must take steps to ensure that the civilian agencies which have statutory responsibilities prepare properly, and that Defence does not become the default ‘first responder’ to make good deficiencies exposed by a developing crisis.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 3

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces have made a vital contribution to the UK’s management of the coronavirus pandemic. This crisis has served to highlight once again the unique flexibility and versatility of our Armed Forces. We express our gratitude to the men and women of the Armed Forces for the vital role they have played in the national response to the pandemic. While Defence has deliberately played a ‘humble’ role throughout, this contribution must be explicitly recognised, perhaps through the creation of a formal award and through the Armed Forces pay settlement.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 4

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
We believe earlier use could have been made of Defence’s unique capabilities and skills, notably in the areas of strategic planning and crisis management. We are surprised that lessons from earlier crises were not learnt and that as a result the Armed Forces’ unique capabilities were not properly used. It appears that there is more work to be done to fulfil the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review’s intent of better educating wider government, the Devolved Administrations and local government about what Defence can do. The Government must ensure that Defence is consulted as early as possible in future such scenarios and that other government departments and agencies are fully aware of the range of capabilities Defence can offer.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 5

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
As the UK emerges from the pandemic, and in light of the UN Secretary General’s words that “in an interconnected world, none of us is safe until all of us are safe”, the Armed Forces may also have an important role to play in ensuring the vaccine reaches those in countries with less-robust healthcare systems or in areas of instability. We call on the government to ensure it makes best use of the Armed Forces’ skills in planning and logistics to assist with the distribution and administration of the coronavirus vaccine(s) within the UK, the Overseas Territories and perhaps further abroad.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 6

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
We encourage the Department to publish the outcome of its Lessons Summit to enable the learning from this experience to be promulgated as widely as possible. Defence must ensure that it evaluates its own response to the pandemic, while contributing to the wider cross-government review (and any public inquiry) to ensure that the UK learns from this once-in-a-century event and is better prepared for the future crises which will inevitably follow, and, in particular, understands that the unique military contribution is mindset rather than manpower.

Link to this item · Read this item

Recommendation 7

Recommendation · Sixth Report: Manpower or mindset: Defence’s contribution to the UK’s pandemic response · Addressed to Ministry of Defence

Recommended (the committee's words)
In addition to delaying the publication of the Integrated Review, it seems inevitable that the pandemic must also influence its conclusions. Coronavirus has highlighted serious deficiencies in the UK’s domestic resilience in the face of an anticipated threat. We have agreed this Report before publication of the Integrated Review, but but believe that the Review and the funding of its conclusions must take into account the significance of Defence’s role in underpinning the UKs’ domestic resilience against future shocks of this magnitude, while enabling the Armed Forces to fulfil their primary role of defending our vital interests at home and abroad.

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

2 sessions

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
24 Nov 2020
Panel 1
Anthony McGee · Ministry of Defence, Major General Charles Stickland CB OBE · Ministry of Defence, Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP · Ministry of Defence
View ↗
14 Jul 2020
Oral evidence session
Bruce Mann CB · UK Emergency Planning College, Dr Jennifer Cole · Royal Holloway University of London, Professor David Alexander · University College London (UCL)
View ↗

Who gave evidence

6 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
Anthony McGee · Deputy Director for Operational Policy (including Counter Terrorism, Crisis & UK Operations) Ministry of Defence 1
Bruce Mann CB · Associate UK Emergency Planning College 1
Dr Jennifer Cole · Research Fellow in Antimicrobial Resistance Royal Holloway University of London 1
Major General Charles Stickland CB OBE · Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Operations and Commitments) Ministry of Defence 1
Professor David Alexander · Professor of Risk and Disaster Reduction University College London (UCL) 1
Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP · Secretary of State Ministry of Defence 1

Correspondence

1 letter

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.