AFC0023

Written evidence submitted by Help for Heroes.

Introduction

As a military charity, Help for Heroes has consistently maintained that the Covenant should be strengthened as much as possible in law. Our expectation—and the expectation of the veteran community—is that legislation should be all-encompassing, raising standards and consistency across all public services, ending the disadvantage of the Armed Forces community and strengthening measures against public bodies that disregard it. A key driver behind our efforts is the need to improve consistency, increase accountability and provide veterans and their families with an accessible form of redress should their needs not be met. 

Ultimately, we are calling on the UK Government to extend the statutory powers of the Armed Forces Covenant so that its legal duty covers national and devolved governments and all areas of public policy, including social care, employment, pensions, compensation, and immigration.

As a leading voice within the sector, we have been involved in various levels of consultation conducted by the Ministry of Defence as part of a Joint Working Group (comprising Cobseo, The Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and Forces in Mind Trust) and have provided feedback to the MOD’s Armed Forces Covenant Team regularly since 2020. This period oversaw the development of the Armed Forces Act 2021, which introduced a legal obligation on certain public bodies to pay due regard to the Covenant, the introduction of the statutory guidance which was laid in secondary legislation at the end of 2022, and the Government’s review of the operation of the new duty in 2023.

Undoubtedly, the Armed Forces Covenant has delivered real progress for veterans, serving personnel and their families, and we fully support the Government’s intent to strengthen its delivery. The upcoming Armed Forces Bill provides an opportunity to cement elements of the Covenant into law, and we welcome the opportunity to submit written evidence to support the Defence Committee’s inquiry, which will further examine how it might be extended and strengthened.

In what areas is the Armed Forces Covenant working well? What are the main causes for these failings? 

Since 2011, the Covenant has been instrumental in improving understanding and support of the Armed Forces community's needs. However, the extent to which it works well is often based on local authorities establishing good local engagement and relationships, which means implementation is often patchy and lacks consistency from a national perspective. Regional resources also remain an important determining factor. For instance, we know that investment in local initiatives, such as Armed Forces Liaison Officers in Wales[1] and Armed Forces Covenant Champions in England, pay dividends, provided they can be sustained.

In England, the Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a new requirement for some public bodies, including the NHS and local authorities, to pay a ‘duty of due regard’ to the principles of the Covenant when carrying out specific public functions in housing, healthcare and education. The duty’s accompanying statutory guidance seeks to clarify what is expected from these services and providers. The case study examples in the guidance provide a useful method of highlighting best practice in each area and draws on previous input by the Joint Working Group. That said, we feel the guidance does not adequately explain the legal obligations to the bodies subject to carrying out the new duty and avoids any perception of telling those bodies how they should meet their responsibilities. This is probably the biggest challenge as many of the veterans we support do not fit into neat categories. Indeed, often the most appropriate examples of ‘special consideration’ involve the joining up of services and provisions. Without a reporting mechanism, or process to follow, it is difficult for a member of the Armed Forces Community to understand whether the duty has been carried out sufficiently.

Due to its narrow scope, it remains to be seen whether the duty is making a real difference, but we do believe it is helping to address some shortfalls where it applies. For instance, the latest Annual Covenant Report highlights that good progress has been made in healthcare, particularly in terms of improved understanding of service-related health issues and injuries, with almost all primary care networks and NHS trusts in England being part of veteran schemes. However, as shown by the MOD’s survey findings, this does not mean all healthcare organisations are veteran-aware, and inconsistencies remain across England and the rest of the UK, with some members of the Armed Forces community still experiencing challenges when trying to access healthcare or continued treatment. There also remains a lack of clarity around the interpretation of priority access for wounded, injured and sick veterans by clinicians and the NHS. 

Under the 2011 Act, the Government is required to produce an annual report to Parliament on the Armed Forces Covenant, which covers much of its support and initiatives for veterans. The Defence Committee also examines veterans' issues in the context of the Armed Forces Covenant Annual Reports. However, establishing an effective means to monitor the delivery of Covenant commitments has been a longstanding issue. Therefore, there is no evidential basis for monitoring and measuring the effectiveness of Covenant commitment, leaving us largely having to rely on perceptions – and findings which are emerging from studies, such as the current Our Community, Our Covenant and Beyond study, sponsored by the Forces in Mind Trust.

Are there areas which the Armed Forces Covenant ought to be extended to, and why? 

If so, which are the priority areas? 

Ultimately, the Government’s Annual Report on the Covenant outlines just how much Covenant-related activity is undertaken by, and is the responsibility of, national government and the devolved administrations. Even where the delivery of services may be local, the source of policy development, legislative requirements and direction is often central government. Despite this, current legislation applies only to elements of local government, and some health and education bodies. As a result, there is an inconsistent approach to policy and services, leaving some persistent issues within the Armed Forces community inadequately addressed.

For example, the Joint Working Group has already highlighted challenges like immigration issues for non-UK service families and the provision of high-quality in-service accommodation, which remain areas where service members are disadvantaged, yet the bodies responsible for these issues are not bound by the Covenant’s promise. Expanding the Covenant Duty to include all policy areas across the UK and devolved governments would foster a more cohesive and consistent strategy for supporting the Armed Forces community. Since members of the Armed Forces rely on public services at all levels of government, all layers of government must integrate the Covenant principles when planning policies and service delivery.

Social Care

Of particular importance to veterans with long-term health conditions and/or disabilities that may result from their service is the provision of social care, which for many is closely linked to their healthcare. Many of the veterans we support face a constant battle to ensure their long-term care, rehabilitation, and social needs are met, appropriately funded, and expertly coordinated. Much of this support is often essential to receive the help they need to improve their quality of life.

Although these services are frequently integrated in terms of policy and delivery, social care is not included in the Armed Forces Covenant. This omission can lead to confusion for veterans and their families. For example, a veteran may be recognised and receive tailored support in healthcare services based on their service, but this recognition does not extend to social care. Including social care in the Covenant would ensure that the Armed Forces community has equal access to it, with the same consideration given to their service as in healthcare. It would prevent any disadvantages arising from service-related circumstances, such as mobility issues.

What legislative changes should be made and why? 

We believe that national government and devolved administrations should be brought within the scope of the new legal duty and that the full range of policy areas protected by the Covenant should be extended to include all issues affecting the Armed Forces community, including social care, employment, pensions, compensation, and immigration.

The Armed Forces Act 2021 put the promise of the Covenant on a legal footing for the first time. However, while most of the public believes it is the responsibility of the national government to deliver, the UK Government has exempted itself from the new duty to give due regard to the Covenant in decision-making and policy development. Instead, only some limited public bodies (mainly local councils) are subject to the new duty. This cannot be right when responsibility for many issues concerning our Armed Forces community rests with national government and the devolved administrations.

While the duty of due regard is an important step in the right direction, if all areas of potential disadvantage are to be addressed, and if special consideration is to be truly provided for, future legislation needs to set measurable and enforceable national standards for which central Government is held to account. Otherwise, there is a danger that we will create a two-tier Covenant with respect to the redress under it that members of the Armed Forces community will be able to seek. In addition, without developing a suitable set of metrics to monitor and measure the duty’s implementation, it continues to be difficult to hold any public body to account in any formal way, beyond the services charity sector highlighting its observations to national government through the Covenant Annual Report.

While we recognise that local authorities may want to be able to deliver the principles of the Covenant through a variety of mechanisms and in different ways, there remains the risk that service providers with limited resources will adhere to the minimum requirement of what they have to provide, and not to the duty of due regard. We therefore believe all the issues that matter to the Armed Forces community should be given greater legal protection under future legislation and that the performance of central government, the devolved administrations and all public bodies should be measured more formally. The simplest and most effective way to achieve this would be to expand the range of public bodies subject to the new duty of due regard and extend it to all their functions.

What impact would the extension of the Armed Forces Covenant legal duty to central government and devolved administrations have? 

The Government's Annual Report on the Covenant outlines just how much Covenant-related activity is undertaken by and is the responsibility of national government and the devolved administrations. Even where service delivery may be local, central government is often the source of policy development, legislative requirements, and direction. Bringing central government and the devolved nations into scope would improve consistency, increase awareness, expand good practice, and encourage collaboration.

The Covenant itself makes clear that “the Covenant should influence policy, service delivery and standards in the areas and ways set out... In many cases these will be a responsibility of Central Government Departments and Devolved Administrations but, in other cases, responsibility will lie with local service providers or organisations within the voluntary or commercial sectors.” This rightly recognises the range of actors involved in the delivery of the Covenant but notably puts the role of central government first and foremost.

Every local authority in Great Britain signed the Covenant, along with many in Northern Ireland, and we know many have chosen to go above and beyond to find new ways to support the Armed Forces community. While many good practices have been identified across the UK, geographical nuances continue to impact the delivery of the Covenant without clear legal processes for each nation to follow. Healthcare, housing, and education are all devolved responsibilities, and to have any effect, the duty would need to be applied in separate legislative settings.

Within healthcare, for instance, the key principles of the Covenant are applied to some of our most injured personnel through the provision of advanced prosthetic services, access to some military rehabilitation facilities, additional funding for mobility and hearing services, targeted case management, and mental health provision. However, we know veterans still have completely different experiences of these services depending on where they live in the UK.

Ultimately, extending the Covenant would ensure consistency across the UK in what is produced, demonstrating both the letter and spirit of the Covenant while respecting and reflecting the devolved context wherever possible. It will ensure persistent issues within the Armed Forces community can be adequately addressed.

17th January 2025