AFC0054
Written evidence submitted by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
1.1. Over many years, Greater Manchester local authorities, most recently as a trailblazing combined authority, have developed effective collaboration through networks and partnerships. This has necessitated significant work to engage with military and mainstream charities, create Armed Forces champions and leads and gain the views of service personnel and Veterans in order to create a City Region-wide forum to share best practices and develop targeted partnership. This has generated the conditions to co-design across all sectors a Greater Manchester Armed Forces Covenant Roadmap that seeks to embed those that serve, have served and their families in all areas of work in our City Region.
1.2. Critically, the Mayor Of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, signed the City Region’s Armed Forces Covenant on his first day in office. Shortly thereafter, a post was created in the Public Service Reform Directorate to transform the offer for the Armed Forces Community. As a result, the Armed Forces Covenant in Greater Manchester sits in the engine room of public service transformation and benefits from direct involvement with discussion and operational design of Devolution in Greater Manchester.
1.3. The introduction of the legal duty requiring local authorities to pay due regard to the Covenant principles in healthcare, education, and housing has provided a handrail for local government and given backbone to local partnerships. Whilst the legislative duty falls short of creating a protected characteristic for Veterans in need, the Statutory guidance allows insight into the specific issues most likely faced by the Armed Forces Community and provides case studies to facilitate solutions. This is a significant step forward; however, there is a necessity for much more to be done.
1.4. The afore-mentioned Roadmap is an opportunity to embed the Armed Forces Community in devolutionary activity which has gained pace and continues to evolve since His Majesty’s Government’s White Paper on Devolution in England. As an example, there is a strong commitment to embed Armed Forces Covenant outcomes into the burgeoning Live Well movement which is set to improve quality of life through community practice for huge numbers of Greater Manchester residents. The strong common identity that the 68 000 Veterans that live in our City Region have demands that we think outside of geography and produce incredible outcomes that ignore Borough boundaries. Live Well and Greater Manchester Devolution more generally seeks to do this and we are collectively committed, across all engaged sectors and organisations, to ensuring that Greater Manchester is the best place in the United Kingdom for members of the Armed Forces Community to live.
1.5. Greater Manchester has a strong military tradition and recruitment for all three Services is both historically and currently strong. Accordingly, Armed Forces Day and other commemorative events are given strong priority when it comes to local government resource, in order to generate a sense of community payback, but also create awareness of the inherent sacrifice of service and the innate disadvantage faced by members of the Armed Forces community. With no regular service bases in Greater Manchester, the Armed Forces Covenant is predominantly concerned with Veterans and their families, many of whom leave the military and return to the North West.
1.6. The Local Government Association (LGA) Armed Forces Covenant Network, has provided a forum to share successes, highlight positive case studies. Greater Manchester Combined Authority has taken a leadership role in this network in order to ensure that these sector-led improvement initiatives are consistently reducing inconsistency in support provision.
1.7. Innovations led by the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans Affairs have led to the creation of partnerships that reach across the North West of England. Funded by the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, the North West Forces Wellbeing Collective is exemplar of how the public and charity sectors can come together to generate effective partnerships to deliver solutions that have real impact for our Armed Forces Community. Greater Manchester Combined Authority has made determined and renewed efforts to be at the heart of pan0sector initiatives such as this in order to provide a support network for the hardworking and dedicated local government lead officers to refer into and seek advice from.
2.1. The Armed Forces Covenant is not mainstream activity across all organisations that seek to prevent disadvantaged individuals suffering from complex needs. This is incomprehensible and suggests a lack of understanding, support and buy-in from some areas of the public sector. A perceived lack of central government ownership, coordination and action created by consultation when it comes to the Armed Forces Covenant is not unfair. As an example, the recent announcement regarding improving access to housing for Veterans and their families was made with no conversation or consultation with those that would have to deliver against the subsequent statutory guidance. By engaging with local government as close to the frontline as possible, central government could be informed as to what would actually improve housing access for Veterans rather than creating additional challenges for those seeking to improve housing allocation policies.
2.2. This is also apparent when considering the efficacy of and adherence to the National Strategy for our Veterans and its associated action plan. The fact that the Action Plan for 2022-24 has expired is unfortunate and has also missed an opportunity. As elements within the Government’s Veterans Strategy Action Plan had been selectively ignored by some Government Departments, it would have been far more effective to have extended the life of the Action Plan for a further year, thus not seeking to reinvent the wheel and allowing the enforcement of measures and outcomes that had not been adhered to in Whitehall. This would also have contributed to the ongoing review of organisational efficacy that the Minister for Veterans and Personnel has quite rightly established.
2.3. Government funding initiatives consistently aim to address inequalities and support local priorities. However, they also currently do not recognise the Armed Forces Community, the inherent sacrifice faced and disadvantage caused by Service and the fact that this Community of Identity can be easily targeted. The Health Inequalities Fund focuses on projects to reduce health disparity but fails to mention Veterans or Service families. Similarly, the (then) DLUHC-owned Changing Futures Programme did not mention the Armed Forces Community. As a result, local authorities frequently do not consider the Armed Forces Covenant and its inherent activities as key deliverables.
2.4. In contrast, targeted programs like the Free From Fear Programme 2024/25 and the Fulfilling Futures Programme 2024/25, are administered by the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. Whilst the support is welcome and the funding of the Trust is clearly derived from central government to support veterans and their families, these initiatives are limited in scope and provide shorter term funding compared to broader government schemes. Crucially, initiatives are predominantly available to the military charity sector with relatively few opportunities for local government or other public sector bodies to apply. Worryingly this promotes an isolationist approach that becomes circular. Government departments are enabled to ignore the Armed Forces Community in broad programmes as they can point to the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust as a funder of Armed Forces Covenant activity. This, in turn, ensures that there is an unfair bias towards the charity sector to attract resource. Furthermore, it drives out the requirement to identify the Armed Forces Community in Departmental programmes.
2.5. This disparity suggests a need for more comprehensive integration of Armed Forces Community considerations into mainstream funding programs to ensure equitable support across all sectors. The omission limits the ability to integrate veteran and service-family support into mainstream policies and funding streams. Local authorities would benefit from clearer alignment of Armed Forces Covenant objectives with broader funding programs designed to improve regional and community-level outcomes.
2.6. Whilst the legislation for local public sector organisations is welcome and has invigorated local delivery to a certain extent, the lack of resource from central government stifles growth and sustainability. In Greater Manchester, we have local authorities who are not replacing their lead officers when they leave their posts. Local authorities are currently operating under a number of resource constraints and priorities, facing significant budget constraints and workforce challenges, which limit their ability to prioritise Covenant-related work. Without dedicated funding or staff, delivery of Armed Forces Covenant objectives risks becoming secondary to other statutory responsibilities.
2.7. The Armed Forces Covenant is loosely applied in Health and there is no appetite to direct Health providers to support their Armed Forces Community. The restructure of the NHS in England has understandably distracted strategy and policy makers and currently, Integrated Care Boards have draft guidance in place of a clear mandate to support those that have served. Appropriate resource and direction regarding the Armed Forces Covenant at a sub-regional level has not been forthcoming in England and this is essential to re-focus organisations into supporting the Armed Forces Community. As an example, the Royal College of General Practitioners Veteran Friendly Accreditation is not mandatory for all GP practices in England; it is entirely unclear why. Similarly, the Veterans Covenant Healthcare Alliance (VCHA) is not mandatory for NHS trusts. Whilst take up of VCHA is better in percentage terms, the lack of operational impact that both programmes have is concerning and many frontline colleagues are concerned about the limited ability of both programmes to adapt and renew.
2.8. While the Ministry of Defence plays an important role in championing the Covenant, its primary focus and expertise do not align with the practicalities of delivering local services. Moreover, the Office for Veterans Affairs (OVA), as a part of the Cabinet Office separated Covenant activity. Whilst the OVA is moving into the MOD, and this is most welcome, coherence is not guaranteed without clear aims and pathways. There appear to be three key stakeholders for Armed Forces Covenant activity with the MOD, OVA and even the Reserve Forces and Cadets’ Association taking the lead for certain aspects. This can result in confusion when it comes to understanding who is best to provide support or guidance, especially when responsibilities intersect with those of other departments, such as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), or the Department for Education (DfE). It is perceived, in the regions, that there is little appetite for cross-Departmental conversations regarding coherence in Covenant delivery simply because no other Government Department ever comes to the ‘Covenant table.’
2.9. The military charity sector is perceived, by successive governments, as the repository of knowledge regarding public sector Armed Forces Covenant delivery; this is not wholly true and must be challenged. To improve implementation of any extension to the duty, there is a need for a more coordinated and collaborative approach across central government and across sectors. Departments with established relationships and experience working with local authorities, such as MHCLG, must have a meaningful role in discussions and decision-making to ensure that national policies are grounded in practical delivery considerations. By involving all relevant departments and creating clear lines of accountability, central government can better support local authorities in fulfilling their Covenant commitments.
3.1. To ensure that the Armed Forces Covenant achieves its potential, there should be stronger integration of its objectives into broader national and local funding strategies that target prevention, multiple disadvantage, social care, family support, adult education and skills as a minimum. Arguably, the duty should be extended so that it encompasses all areas of support where central government direction and resource creates local programmes and pathways for residents to live better lives.
3.2. However, it is important to stress that whilst the extant legislation is sound, change is constant. Accordingly, alongside duty expansion, it should be considered essential to audit efficacy of the in-scope elements of existing Armed Forces Covenant legislation.
3.3. The creation of nationally recognised benchmarks or standards, co-designed with local authorities and facilitated by the LGA, would promote consistency and ensure local government has a clear understanding of expectations. Crucially, new responsibilities should be matched with adequate funding to prevent further strain on already stretched local services. Local authorities are central to the delivery of the Armed Forces Covenant. While it may be crucial to expand its scope and strengthen delivery mechanisms, these efforts must be supported with co-designing principles, clear guidance, adequate funding, and collaborative planning. Only by balancing ambition with practical support for local authorities – who are main service delivery partners – can the Armed Forces Covenant deliver genuine, lasting benefits for service personnel, veterans, and their families without overburdening local government. This has already been submitted by the LGA to the Defence Committee, but we feel it is incredibly important and so we repeat it here for emphasis.
3.4. The recent White Paper demonstrates that English Devolution is the direction of travel for local government. Therefore, the Armed Forces Covenant should be considered and captured by both sides in Devolution negotiations. As the success to date in transforming the offer for our Armed Forces Community in Greater Manchester is entirely due to embedding the Covenant in the Combined Authority, it seems prudent to demand that fledgling devolution agreements discuss Armed Forces Covenant delivery.
4.1. The keynote change to legislation supporting the delivery of the Armed Forces Covenant would be to expand the duty to consider the unique causality of disadvantage and the niche needs faced by the Armed Forces Community to all government departments. In this way, ownership of the Covenant would become universal across government and the Covenant would become a mainstream consideration for all areas in scope. It is incomprehensible that government departments that own sections of the National Strategy for our Veterans Action Plan do not, themselves, hold a Duty of Due Regard in respect of the Armed Forces Community. The areas in scope, commensurate with previous comments, must be expanded to capture all areas of support for those in need.
4.2. Furthermore, legislation should be pivoted towards prevention and areas of best practice, such as the burgeoning Live Well movement in Greater Manchester should be rapidly assessed and integrated into associated statutory guidance.
5.1. Expanding the duty will increase support for the Armed Forces Community by embedding Covenant principles into a broader range of services, such as employment, social care, policing, and mental health. It will raise awareness of the unique causes of disadvantage and have the effect of generating local and regional coherence in a manner that has never been seen before.
5.2. It is clear that there will be a financial impact to properly introduce and maintain expansion of the duty. If, as mentioned previously, extending the duty can be combined with prevention, then it also makes sense to calculate the financial impact of such an approach. Many organisations talk in social value terms to make the business case for preventative activity and this approach should be seen as the key to unlocking investment, in order to save money and lives in the future.
24th January 2025