AFC0055

Written evidence submitted by the Local Government Association (LGA).

1.           About the Local Government Association (LGA)

• The LGA is the National Voice of local government. We’re on the side of councils: promoting their work, supporting them to improve and helping them make a difference to people, places and the planet.

• We aim to be the best membership organisation we can be. As the national membership body for local authorities, we provide the bridge between central and local government and we help councils deliver the best services to their local communities.

• For further information on this submission, please contact: Arian Nemati, LGA Public Affairs and Campaigns Adviser. Email: arian.nemati@local.gov.uk / Tel: 07799 038403

2.           In what areas is the Armed Forces Covenant working well?

• Many local authorities have developed effective collaboration through networks and partnerships, often engaging with military charities, local Armed Forces champions, and service personnel to share best practices. Regional forums (e.g., in the East of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Kent, and Surrey) have shown how targeted partnership working can enhance local support, and practice in areas like Greater Manchester is often held up as an example of brilliant partnership working to deliver the Covenant.

• The introduction of the legal duty requiring specified public bodies to pay due regard to the Covenant principles in healthcare, education, and housing has brought focus and formality to local authority action. Some authorities have leveraged this to audit their processes and strengthen local partnerships. The statutory guidance issued in 2023 has provided a strong foundation for these efforts, supporting the unique needs of the Armed Forces Community and the responsibilities of public bodies.

• Events such as Armed Forces Day have been used to raise the profile of Armed Forces issues, generate public support, and showcase local initiatives. Many authorities use these occasions to launch or re-launch programs, celebrate successes, and encourage wider community involvement.

• The LGA Armed Forces Covenant Network, as well as other sector-led groups, has provided a forum to share successes, highlight positive case studies (e.g., annual Armed Forces conferences, the ‘military child’ campaign), and discuss emerging best practices. Such sector-led improvement initiatives are gradually reducing inconsistency in support provision.

3.           Where is the Armed Forces Covenant failing the Armed Forces Community, and what are the main causes?

• Despite these positive developments, several challenges remain. While recent government funding initiatives have aimed to address inequalities and support local priorities, they often lack explicit references to the Armed Forces Community. For instance, the Health Inequalities Fund 2024/25 focuses on innovative projects to reduce health disparities but does not specifically mention veterans or service families.

• In contrast, targeted programs like the Free From Fear Programme 2024/25 and the Fulfilling Futures Programme 2024/25, administered by the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, are designed to support veterans and their families. However, these initiatives are relatively limited in scope and funding compared to broader government schemes.

• 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.

• Local authorities are currently operating under a number of different resource constraints and priorities. Local authorities face significant budget constraints and workforce challenges, which can 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.

• While statutory guidance has provided a valuable foundation, the absence of core standards can leave local authorities uncertain about the expectations for consistent Covenant delivery. Strengthening national guidance and providing practical, actionable tools would enable local authorities to deliver more consistent and effective support to the Armed Forces Community. The LGA is well-placed to collaborate with central government in developing these resources, ensuring they are practical, tailored to local needs, and promote consistency across regions.

• 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. This can result in confusion for councils seeking 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.

• To improve implementation of any extension to the duty, there is a need for a more coordinated and collaborative approach across central government. 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.

4.           Are there areas to which the Armed Forces Covenant ought to be extended? If so, which are the priority areas?

• 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.

• Additional areas of focus, such as social care, family support, employment services, and criminal justice pathways, could be considered, as these overlap significantly with the needs of the Armed Forces Community.

• Collaboration with social services and local NHS mental health commissioning would help provide joined-up support for veterans’ families and individuals with complex or long-term care needs.

• 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.

5.           What legislative changes should be made and why?

• More involvement from MHCLG to oversee and coordinate Armed Forces Covenant delivery across government could help address accountability gaps and provide local authorities with clearer guidance. Any changes to governance structures should aim to reduce fragmentation and simplify communication channels for councils.

• Rather than introducing new, burdensome legislative requirements, the focus should be on enabling councils to deliver effectively within existing frameworks. For example, supporting local authorities with guidance or practical tools could help address inconsistencies in Covenant delivery while respecting local decision-making. This approach would encourage councils to build on best practices without adding unnecessary administrative tasks.

• To avoid inconsistent service delivery, national government could co-design benchmarks or best practice standards with local authorities and the LGA. These standards should serve as practical guides rather than strict mandates, ensuring flexibility to adapt to local contexts.

• Proposals to broaden the statutory duty should carefully consider the capacity of local government. Expanding duties to additional areas such as employment, social care, or policing would be welcomed by councils but must be aligned with appropriate funding and resourcing. Councils already face significant workforce and budget pressures, so any additional responsibilities must be clearly defined, well-supported, and co-developed with the sector.

• Rather than mandating new reporting requirements, central government could streamline existing data collection and monitoring processes to avoid duplication. A collaborative approach that prioritises shared outcomes across different sectors will help ensure efforts are focused on delivering real benefits to the Armed Forces Community, rather than meeting bureaucratic demands.

• The LGA is committed to working with central government to ensure that any legislative changes or new duties are realistic, outcome-focused, and aligned with the resources available to local government.

6.           What impact would extending the Armed Forces Covenant legal duty to central government and devolved administrations have?

• If the Armed Forces Covenant legal duty were extended to cover additional policy areas beyond healthcare, education, and housing, it would have significant implications for both central government and devolved administrations. Expanding the duty would likely enhance 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. However, this would also introduce additional responsibilities and complexities for central and devolved governments.

• For central government, an expanded duty would necessitate stronger cross-departmental coordination to ensure that policies in newly covered areas align with Covenant principles. Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, and DHSC would need to integrate these responsibilities into their existing frameworks, requiring updates to policies, processes, and guidance. The potential for duplication or conflicting priorities across departments would need to be carefully managed.

• The role of devolved administrations would also be affected. Extending the duty would require devolved governments to review and adapt their own policies to meet the expanded requirements. Areas like social care and policing, which are often devolved, could see changes in how services are designed and delivered. Ensuring consistency in the application of the Covenant across the UK could be challenging, particularly where responsibilities intersect between devolved administrations and central government. Clear communication and alignment mechanisms between Westminster and devolved governments would be critical.

• Central and devolved governments would also need to engage closely with local authorities and other delivery partners to ensure that expanded responsibilities are practical and well-supported. Without clear guidance and adequate resourcing, the expanded duty risks becoming a “tick-box” exercise that fails to deliver meaningful benefits for the Armed Forces Community. Transparent financial impact assessments would be essential to identify the administrative and financial implications of these changes, particularly for local government, which would often be at the forefront of delivery.

• A further consideration is operational capacity. For example, devolved governments may face additional scrutiny and reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance across a wider range of policy areas. To mitigate this, any reporting mechanisms should be aligned with existing systems and focus on outcomes rather than processes.

• Finally, central and devolved governments would need to provide adequate resources and funding to ensure that any new responsibilities are effectively implemented. Extending the duty to additional policy areas without corresponding support could strain existing systems and detract from service quality. Co-designing implementation strategies with stakeholders—including local authorities, devolved governments, and Armed Forces representatives—would help ensure that the expanded duty is both realistic and impactful.

24th January 2025