2Governance and metrics
Introduction
9.The 2017 Covenant Annual Report announced the creation of the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board (known as the Veterans Board), with the first meeting taking place in October 2017.12 The Veterans Board meets every six months and is co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Defence, the Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden CBE MP.13 It provides coordination of, and oversight for, public-sector service provision for veterans with the aim of delivering Covenant commitments across all Government departments.14 It also has representation from the devolved administrations in attendance in the form of the lead Minister with responsibility for Covenant and Veterans issues and the Northern Ireland Office.15
10.The Veterans Board forms part of a wider structure of governance around the Covenant that includes the Covenant Reference Group, External Partners Meeting, Service Charities Partnership Board and the Ministerial Families Forum.16
Office for Veterans’ Affairs
11.On 29 July 2019, the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, announced the creation of an Office for Veterans’ Affairs, “to provide lifelong support to military personnel”.17 The Office will be located inside the Cabinet Office and will be jointly overseen by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Rt Hon Oliver Dowden CBE MP, and the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, Johnny Mercer MP. The Office will work “with departments to coordinate and drive government policy on veterans’ welfare, spanning mental and physical health, education and employment”.18 Both Ministers are scheduled to give a progress report to the Prime Minister by 30 September 2019.
12.On 2 September 2019, the Government announced a £5 million funding boost for the Office for Veterans’ Affairs as part of the Governments 2019 Spending Round. The money will be used to “fund additional staff and resources, so that the newly-established Office for Veterans’ Affairs (OVA) can drive cross-Whitehall action to support veterans’ welfare”.19
13.We welcome the establishment of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the shared responsibility between MoD and the Cabinet Office. We are, however, keen to see a balance in the implementation of the Covenant between the needs of veterans and those of serving personnel. It is important that the Office makes a real difference and does not add another layer of bureaucracy to the delivery of the Covenant. In response to our report, the Government should set out how this Office will operate across MoD and the Cabinet Office, including the role of the Office within the broader Covenant governance structure, the role of each Minister, the long-term vision for the Office, the funding that will be made available to it, and the approach it will take to ensure a coordinated and consistent level of service is provided across Whitehall to veterans.
Engagement with the devolved administrations
14.Representatives from the devolved administrations are invited to attend meetings of the Veterans Board, but they are not full members. In oral evidence, James Greenrod, Interim Head, Service Personnel Support at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) suggested that the collapse of the Executive in Northern Ireland had “led to difficulties formalising that position to date”.20 He added, however, that “It is absolutely the aspiration that we will be able to formalise that position”.
15.This situation was presented as a “technical issue”,21 which did not adversely affect the working relationship with the devolved administrations. However, it is not clear to us why the situation in Northern Ireland precludes a formal agreement with the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations.
16.There are also concerns that Northern Ireland continues to be represented by the Northern Ireland Office at Veterans Board meetings, when the issues discussed fall outside of its remit.22 The Northern Ireland Civil Service has operational responsibility for the issues discussed at the Veterans Board, but James Greenrod told us that, despite a standing invitation, the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, David Sterling, had chosen not to attend or to send a representative in his place.23 The Scottish and Welsh Governments have lead Ministers in attendance alongside the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
17.We wrote to Mr Sterling to find out whether he planned to attend the Veterans Board.24 He replied that the Covenant had “not been adopted by the Northern Ireland Executive” and that at the time of the collapse of the last Executive, “there was no agreement on participation by either Executive Ministers or officials in forums associated with the Covenant”. He concluded that until there was an agreed position on participation, he would not be attending or sending a representative.
18.In response we referred to guidance on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, which allows decision-making by a senior officer of a Northern Ireland Department in the absence of Ministers, if it is in the public interest to do so.25 In his reply Mr Sterling argued that the priorities and commitments of former Executive Ministers should be followed unless there were an “exceptional circumstance”, as laid out in the guidance. He did not believe that this was an “exceptional circumstance”, but did recognise our position that the principles of the Covenant are in the UK public interest. He added:
… I take this opportunity to re-affirm that we will of course continue to provide factual input to UK Government departments on matters relevant to the Armed Forces Covenant. There are also liaison arrangements in place in areas such as healthcare, education and housing.
19.Most recently, the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 imposed a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an initial report on “progress made towards preparing legislation confirming the application of the Armed Forces Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland”.26 The report was published on 4 September 2019.27
20.We are concerned that the collapse of the Executive in Northern Ireland has impeded full engagement with, and implementation of, Covenant principles within Northern Ireland, thus creating a disparity with other parts of the UK. We welcome the duty placed on the Secretary of State to report on the progress of preparing legislation confirming the application of the Covenant in the provision of public services in Northern Ireland. The Government should also consider amending the guidance provided by the Northern Ireland Office to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, to ensure that, in the absence of a devolved Executive in Northern Ireland, a representative from the Northern Ireland Civil Service attends meetings of the Veterans Board.
21.We are disappointed that the situation in Northern Ireland has delayed full membership on the Veterans Board for the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations. We note that the MoD believes this has not affected their working relationship with the devolved administrations, but we are concerned about the message this sends. The MoD should give full membership to the Scottish and Welsh Governments immediately. It should also explain its reasoning for withholding full membership to date, which should include any negative implications of granting full membership that have been identified.
Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust and the involvement of charities
22.In April 2018, the £10 million per annum Covenant Fund was moved from the MoD to become an independent trust called the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, following a decision that the Fund should be independent.28 In oral evidence, General (Retd) Sir John McColl, Chairman of COBSEO, said he felt that the transition to the Covenant Fund Trust had gone “pretty smoothly”.29
23.The Covenant Fund has four broad funding themes:
- Removing barriers to family life;
- Extra support after service for those that need help;
- Measures to integrate military and civilian communities and allow the armed forces community to participate as citizens; and
- Non-core healthcare services for veterans.30
24.The Service charities are now represented on the Covenant Fund Trust as trustees. The Chair of COBSEO is a permanent trustee and the Service Families Federations occupy the position of trustee on a rotational basis every two years.31 The seat is currently held by the Naval Families Federation. In oral evidence, Anna Wright, Chief Executive of the Naval Families Federation said that as a trustee they could add value by seeing what type of bids come in, what they aim to do and how credible they are.32
25.Written evidence from Northumbria and Chester University suggested more consideration should be given to the timings of announcements for major projects. They argue that there seems to be a yearly cycle of major calls which are announced over major holiday periods, “We would argue that this impacts greatly on quality, as large institutions will struggle to have access to the correct resources during these holiday periods”.33 In response, James Greenrod said that the timetable for calls is driven by “a number of conflicting priorities” and that “we can certainly have another look at that”.34
26.In our report on the 2017 Covenant Annual Report we expressed concern over the costs of setting up and sustaining the new Fund which required a new IT system and new premises.35 We sought reassurance that safeguards were in place to ensure the smallest possible proportion of the £10 million allocated to the Fund was used for this purpose. In its response to our report the MoD confirmed that there was a limit of £500,000 per annum on running costs linked to the grant-in-aid funding agreement which cannot be exceeded without formal consent from both MoD and the Treasury.36 In oral evidence, James Greenrod, MoD, confirmed that they are operating within the cap and this remains their intention for the future. However, he added:
There are ongoing conversations as to whether or not, beyond the core £10 million a year, it is appropriate for other funds to be channelled through the trust fund. Unless and until those conversations reach a conclusion, the trust fund is committed to operating within the 5% cap that you mentioned.37
27.As well as managing the £10 million per annum to support the Armed Forces community the Covenant Fund Trust also manages another £10 million allocated by the Chancellor in the 2018 Autumn Budget to support Veterans’ Mental Health and Wellbeing needs.38
28.We were pleased to hear the positive feedback from Service charities regarding the transition to the Covenant Fund Trust. We welcome the Fund’s new independent status, the involvement of representatives from the Service charities as trustees for the Fund and the additional funding for Veterans’ Mental Health and Wellbeing needs. However, with the introduction of additional funding beyond the core £10 million fund, we are concerned that the appropriate safeguards may not be in place to ensure that operational costs are kept to a minimum.
29.In response to our report, the MoD should provide details of any other funds it expects to channel through the Covenant Fund Trust and the safeguards being put in place to ensure that running costs are kept to a minimum. This should include any planned increases and how the cost will be shared amongst the funds.
Measuring Covenant delivery
30.When the Veterans Board was established its top priority was improving the way Covenant delivery was measured.39 The 2018 Covenant Report saw an increase in metrics for healthcare, education and accommodation.
31.General McColl of COBSEO told us that the metrics used in the 2018 Annual Report reflected a national picture of Covenant delivery rather than showing disparities at the local level.40 He felt that many of the concerns raised by the Service charities in the report focused on the discrepancy between national policy and local delivery. He added that “dealing with the disparity of local delivery is at the heart of quite a lot of comments across the Covenant observations from the third sector”.
32.James Greenrod said that the MoD had the data for working-age veterans at the local level across four of the Covenant themes: healthcare, education, accommodation and employment.41 He added that they were currently in the process of comparing this data with that of the general population to identify where disadvantage exists at the local level, “That work is ongoing with the Office for National Statistics. We hope to have something more to share with you later on this year”.
33.However, in oral evidence, Louise Simpson, the Policy and Research Director at the Army Families Federation, expressed concern that the data on the location of Service families and the type of support they require was lacking.42 Anna Wright from the Naval Families Federation highlighted the limitations of the Tri-Service Families Continuous Attitude Survey (FAMCAS) with the exclusion of unmarried partners in long term relationships, a cohort that makes up approximately 28% of the Navy.43 They would like to see FAMCAS open to everybody.
34.Charles Byrne from the Royal British Legion also considered the availability of data as a “fundamental weakness” that needed to be addressed.44 He believed that adding a veterans question to the national census “will give a foundation of data that everybody will benefit from”. While we welcomed the introduction of a veterans question we were concerned about the security implications of collecting veterans’ addresses and sought reassurance that such data would be held and protected by a high level of security.45 In supplementary written evidence the MoD clarified the precautions being taken that were decided in consultation with National Counter Terrorism Policing, including the Police Service for Northern Ireland:
Once the information has been collected details on numbers of veterans per local authority area will be anonymised and made available to that authority, but only to the definition of the first part of postcodes in order to prevent individuals and their specific locations being identified. Where there are 10 or fewer veterans in a local authority area that authority will receive a nil return in order to prevent individuals from being identified.46
35.As well as having access to relevant data on the Armed Forces community to identify disadvantage, our report on the Covenant Annual Report 2017 highlighted the need to assess the impact of funded initiatives. Our report recommended the implementation of independent assessment of Covenant commitments including “ways of measuring impact, outputs and outcomes as well as inputs”.47 An Outcomes Measurement Framework is being developed by the Veterans and Families Institute at Anglia Ruskin University with an early test version being shared with current grant holders.48 The Outcomes Measurement Framework will be used to track the progress of projects funded by the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust to ensure they are sustainable, cost effective and provide maximum impact to the intended beneficiaries.49
36.We are pleased with the progress in developing an Outcomes Measurement Framework for Covenant funding that will help ensure maximum impact for the Armed Forces community. We are also encouraged by the MoD’s commitment to share data on the disparity of Covenant delivery at the local level in comparison with the general population later this year.
37.It is important that identifying disadvantage in the Armed Forces community and measuring the delivery of Covenant initiatives are based on accurate data. The Department should also use current forms of data gathering more effectively. This includes the information captured by Service family surveys such as FAMCAS which reflects modern family structures. We therefore expect the MoD to review current data-gathering tools across Covenant themes to identify gaps and ways of capturing data using new and existing tools. The results of this review should be shared with the Committee.
12 Ministry of Defence, press release, 3 October 2017
13 Ministry of Defence, press release, 29 July 2019
14 Ministry of Defence, The Strategy for our Veterans, Cm 9726, November 2018, p 12
15 Q113 [Mr Ellwood]
16 Defence Committee, Eleventh Special Report of Session 2017–19, Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2017: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2017–2019, HC 1571, p 10
17 Ministry of Defence, press release, 29 July 2019
18 Ministry of Defence, press release, 29 July 2019
19 Ministry of Defence, press release, 2 September 2019
20 Q109 [Mr Greenrod]
21 Q111 [Mr Ellwood]
22 Qq113-117 [Gavin Robinson]
23 Qq115-117 [Mr Greenrod]
26 Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (ch22), section 15
27 Northern Ireland Office, Report pursuant to section 3(15) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 - the Armed Forces Covenant, 4 September 2019
28 Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, Our History, website accessed 28 June 2019
29 Q55 [Sir John McColl]
31 Q9 [Anna Wright] and Q55 [Sir John McColl]
32 Q9 [Anna Wright]
33 Northumbria and Chester University (CAR0001)
34 Q153 [Mr Greenrod]
35 Defence Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2017–19, Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2017, HC 707, para 73
36 Defence Committee, Eleventh Special Report of Session 2017–19, Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2017: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2017–2019, HC 1571, p13
37 Q152 [Mr Greenrod]
38 Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust, Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund, website accessed 29 June 2019
39 Ministry of Defence, Armed Forces Covenant Report 2018, 21 November 2018, p 11
40 Q56 [Sir John McColl]
41 Q137 [Mr Greenrod]
42 Q19 [Louise Simpson]
43 Q13 [Anna Wright]
44 Q98 [Mr Byrne]
45 Qq143-145
47 Defence Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2017–19, Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report 2017, HC 707, para 33
Published: 25 September 2019