AFC0081

Written evidence submitted by the Scottish Government

Thank you for your letter of 28 February 2025 inviting the First Minister to provide evidence to the Defence Committee inquiry into the Armed Forces Covenant. As the Minister responsible for veterans, I am responding on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Firstly, let me begin by saying that the Scottish Government greatly values and supports our Armed Forces community. This is evidenced primarily by our Veterans Strategy Action Plan, last updated in August 2022 and annual reports on support for the veterans and Armed Forces community, the latest of which was published in December 2024. Service personnel, veterans and their families are assets to our society and have much to offer to their communities.

Scottish Ministers are highly supportive of the aims of the Armed Forces Covenant and the commitment of organisations across Scotland to build enhanced support for the Armed Forces community and foster better integration between local communities and the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces community should not be disadvantaged as a result of their service and I think that this is a principle with which few would disagree. We have been supportive of the aims of the existing Armed Forces Covenant legislation including strengthening awareness of the principles of the Covenant among public bodies and improving service delivery for the Armed Forces community.

I understand that the UK Government is developing plans to extend the Covenant duty of due regard to UK Government departments and devolved administrations across a broader range of policy areas beyond housing, health and education functions within the current legislation. I have had some initial conversations with the UK Minister for Veterans, Al Carns on these plans and my officials have similarly had limited discussions with their counterparts in the Ministry of Defence.

You have asked the Scottish Government to consider the impact of a duty extension on the devolved administrations. I believe that there are two primary elements to consider when addressing this question: the impact on the Scottish Government itself; and the impact on the Armed Forces and veterans community within Scotland. I will address each element separately and in turn.

Firstly, it is important to note that until we have a full understanding of, and an opportunity to consider, the content and provisions within any new Duty, it will be difficult to properly quantify the impact of the legislation.

Having said that, it is likely that the primary impact on the Scottish Government is that it would place an additional administrative and legal burden on policy and decision makers. There will be new processes to design and follow in order to evidence that the Covenant principles are being considered during decision making and policy development. The number of Scottish Government staff affected, in one way or another, is likely to be in the thousands. In the short term, staff time will be required to familiarise themselves with the Duty, associated guidance and undertake any necessary training. Processes for evidencing adherence to the Duty will have to be designed and implemented as business as usual and subsumed into staff’s day-to-day working. It is difficult to quantify the precise impact this will have, but it is clear that there will be a resourcing implication for the Scottish Government and thus a cost. If there are any financial implications for public bodies we would expect these to be funded by UK Government and for the Scottish Government to receive resulting consequentials.

There are also likely to be additional, perhaps more positive, impacts of an expansion to the Duty. For example, it is likely to solidify further our public commitment to the Covenant and demonstrate a real willingness of the governments across the UK to take on the same legal responsibilities that are already on the local bodies currently in scope. It may also be well received by the Armed Forces community itself, including Serving personnel, veterans, their families and the wider stakeholder community and thus possibly increase trust in government’s commitment to supporting the Armed Forces community. Wider awareness of the Covenant may also improve, and this may lead to more effective delivery of its principles. This would be welcome but I have said before that delivering the Covenant successfully would actually, somewhat paradoxically, make it redundant, with understanding of the Armed Forces community and their needs embedded in the very fabric of public service delivery and wider society.

I would also make the point that the Scottish Government is already held accountable to the Scottish Parliament and the Armed Forces community in a number of ways. We report annually to Parliament on our support for the Armed Forces community as well as contribute to the UK Government’s annual Covenant and Veterans Report. We also receive independent scrutiny from the Scottish Veterans Commissioner through her annual progress reports on the recommendations which have been made to the Scottish Government by the three Veterans Commissioners. We also engage across the UK at both official and Ministerial level and, regardless of any proposed Duty extension, it is vital that joined-up, collaborative working endures, especially between the Ministry of Defence, Devolved Administrations and wider stakeholder community to ensure that knowledge and understanding of the Covenant continues to improve and its principles are delivered.

Moving onto the impact on the Armed Forces community itself. This is, again, difficult to quantify. Whilst there will undoubtedly be lessons we can learn from partners already subject to the Duty, I do not believe that there are any robust methods in place to measure its impact, which may have offered an insight and baseline to consider when determining the potential effectiveness of an extension to the Duty. I would, however, like to reflect on some of what the Scottish Veterans Commissioner said during her oral evidence session to the Committee on 25 February. The Commissioner was right to say that there can be misunderstandings amongst the Armed Forces and veterans community about what the Covenant is, means and does. If a Duty extension serves to raise awareness of the Covenant in the first instance then that must surely be a good thing. The Commissioner also reflected on areas of existing good practice in Scotland, particularly in relation to veterans health – both mental and physical - and skills and employability, which I would echo. There are also several fantastic examples of projects which have benefitted veterans and their families through the Scottish Government’s Scottish Veterans Fund since the Fund’s inception in 2008. These are real life examples of where the Covenant principles are already being applied by Government.

There are many other good examples of support for veterans, their families and the wider Armed Forces community in Scotland - the Scottish Government’s annual report on support for the veterans and Armed Forces community details such examples in more detail - but I think it is perhaps more important to stress that oftentimes bespoke or additional support is not needed or wanted. The majority of veterans and their families will have no greater, or different, needs beyond those of the general population. Most people leaving Service will do so successfully, without hindrance, and go on to lead positive, fulfilling lives as members of society. They will find a home, get a good job or go into education (or, indeed, retire happily) and access mainstream healthcare services like everyone else. I remain committed to challenging the incorrect perception that all veterans and their families are somehow damaged by their Service - this is absolutely not the case. It is not clear to me whether expanding the Duty and bringing government into scope will help address these negative perceptions of veterans. It may actually have the opposite effect.

Of course, we do know that there can be challenges. Some veterans and their families will need additional services and bespoke packages of support and we must continue to do all we can to ensure that this is available when and where needed. I know that there have been issues, for example, with some service families accessing appropriate childcare in some areas – the Commissioner raised this in her evidence too. There can also, sometimes, be cross-border issues where services or the wider support landscape is different across the UK. In these cases, if the Covenant Duty is expanded and the devolved administrations are brought into scope, then it is possible that there may be a reduction in disadvantage if/where it is identified or uncovered during policy development.

Furthermore, if the expanded Duty raises awareness of the Covenant and improves understanding of the unique obligations and sacrifices of the Armed Forces community, such as mobility, across government then this could help identify and address issues Serving families can face when moving to new areas of the UK.

As with the current legislation, it is vital to the success of a new Duty that the associated statutory guidance provides clarity to the bodies in scope, and particularly to those staff making decisions on developing and delivering policy to ensure no disadvantage for the Armed Forces community. Continued support and training to service providers, in particular front-line workers, is key to ensuring appropriate service delivery to Armed Forces personnel, veterans and their families and that their unique challenges and circumstances are understood and appropriately recognised. I would make the obvious point that it is not usually central government who deliver front-line services.

In conclusion, and returning to your question of “what impact would the extension of the Armed Forces Covenant legal duty to central government and devolved administrations have?” – ultimately, it is difficult to quantify at this stage without more detail on the content and intended mechanics of the Duty. Clearly, there will be an impact on Scottish Government resources which in itself is potentially troubling given other pressures and constraints across all portfolio areas. It is also not clear the extent to which the Duty would deliver improved outcomes for veterans and their families. The Scottish Government is already committed to the principles of the Covenant and we are not aware of significant areas of disadvantage which would be addressed by bringing government into scope of an expanded Covenant Duty. However, it is possible that, with a legal duty to consider the needs of the Armed Forces and veterans community in policy development across a number of portfolios, areas of disadvantage may be uncovered.

I also note that in its 2023 Covenant and Veterans Annual Report, the Ministry of Defence assessed that the costs and benefits from bringing the UK and devolved governments into scope do not produce any clear net benefit at the national level. I would be keen to see any updated assessment by the UK Government which demonstrates an analysis to the contrary.

GRAEME DEY MSP

Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans

13th March 2025