Guidance

VAPC London: meeting minutes 15 December 2021

Updated 22 March 2024

Venue: Microsoft teams

Time: 4pm to 5.45pm

Present

• Sir Bill Charles (BC) – Chairman
• Jim Blake (JB)
• Caroline Flynn Macleod (CFM)
• Bishnu Gurung (BG)
• Robin Herzberg (FRH)
• Carl Hunter (CH)
• Wendy Morris (WM)
• Matthew Neave (MN)
• Charles Perrett (CP)
• Alpa Raja (AR)
• Matthew Seward (MS)
• Brian Willmore (BW)
• Alex Woolgar Toms (AWT)
• Frances Luczyc Wyhowska (FLW)

Apologies

• Annabel Goulding (AG)
• Oliver Leeming (OL)
• Rebecca Lefort (RL)
• Nick Mazzei (NM)
• Larry Stone (LS)

Observers/guests

• Alex Page (Covenant in the Capital)

Welcome

BC welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence

It was noted that AG, OL, RL, NM and LS had been unable to attend.

Minutes of 22 September 2021 meeting

The minutes, which had been circulated, were approved and BC agreed to forward them to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for publication.

Action: BC

Discussion on BC’s report

BC has reported on the functions issue to past meetings. In his reports to this meeting he confirmed that:

• (i) the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, Leo Docherty, had now issued Supplementary Terms of Reference and
• (ii) he had written to the Minister’s Office for clarification of issues on 29 October and 2 December.

No replies (or acknowledgements) of those emails have been received. This means that no confirmation of BC’s understanding relating to the fulfilment of the intention to “broaden the role into statute” is correct has been given and we have not been informed of the processes proposed for the review and the preparation of a Private Members Bill and their timetables.

The ToR, acknowledges that the statutory role of members of the committee under section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 is limited and so invites members of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (VAPCs) to act as members of informal groups (Regional Committees) for the purposes of acting as advocates for veterans.

BC invited members of LVAPC to consider acceptance of the invitation in the ToR and so the creation of the parallel two group structure it creates.

Various members expressed misgivings about the ToR including that:

• (i) the Regional Committees would lack legitimacy
• (ii) they were cynical about the intentions of those who proposed and supported the TOR and seemed to have resisted legislative change
• (iii) disappointment that BC’s letters had not been answered and so there was a lack of clarity on the processes and timetables for the review and a PMB
• (iv) effecting change would be difficult without legitimacy
• (v) obtaining and analyzing evidence in time to report to ministers would be challenging (vi) the dual reporting lines – to the Minister of Defence People and the Chancellor of the Chancellor of Lancaster – would cause confusion
• (vii) the committee had no resources with which to carry out the work and
• (viii) the TOR place inappropriate emphasis on a central or unified approach through the ad hoc committee of chairs which is only advisory and has very limited resources

It was however acknowledged that at last the TOR conferred functions relating to all veterans and so a foundation to test whether the members of LVAPC can add value outside their limited statutory role. And that this pragmatism and their wish to try to add value for the benefit of all veterans supported the creation of the Regional Committee for London.

On balance all the members of LVAPC present indicated that they accepted the invitation to join the Regional Committee and would try to make the TOR work effectively for the benefit of veterans.

The clear consensus was also that in taking this course the members would maintain and promote an independent standpoint at all times. This underpins their potential usefulness in a crowded public, private and third sector area as it enables them to best gather information and to make informed and constructive recommendations on strategy and delivery of services to veterans.

Action: BC

Reports from the teams

Covenant in the Capital

AP reported on the new Armed Forces Champions Network she had formed and was expanding. She mentioned that the network included various government departments such as the Department of Health and Department of Work and Pensions who had now appointed armed forces champions. Her team were now seeking to understand what support was already in place and were starting to capture data from the departments. The next step would be to extend the same process into local authorities.

BG emphasized the need for the champions to be able to reach back into their departments to resolve individual issues.

CFM mentioned the importance of involving Regimental Associations.

CP is a member of the network and AP is planning to prepare a document relating to it and stage 2 of the process relating to expansion into local authorities and the promotion and publication of the Network and what it can provide.

It is at the promotion and publication stage that AP thinks the Regional Committee members can best assist.

However, she asked that if anyone could signpost her towards individuals or organisations who might add value at this stage by joining or providing information to the Network that would be useful. Possibilities were raised by JB, BG, AR and others. It was agreed that members would consider this and if appropriate provide AP with possibilities and in light of what AP does we could consider what if anything we should do relating to them.

AP confirmed that she finds attendance at out meetings helpful. It was agreed that she should be invited to attend all meetings and BC agreed to add her to the LVAPC group email.

Action: All

Employment and financial education

FRH had prepared a paper which had been circulated. He reported that the Employment group had, through discussions with an American contractor, identified the following support being given to veterans in the US:

• (i) contracts set aside specifically for Veteran Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs)
• (ii) discounts of 20% for veterans who live near military bases
• (iii) free health care for veterans with 20 years’ service for up to 5 years after discharge
• (iv) lending at preferential rates and (v) free burials.

FRH confirmed that he had asked representatives of the Gurkha community whether they had considered:

• (i) submitting a Freedom of Information Request seeking an update on the cost of establishing parity, and
• (ii) lodging a submission with the Parliamentary Ombudsman asking the ombudsman to consider whether the communications with the Gurkhas on National Insurance credits had been sufficient

FRH also reported on the meeting AG had arranged with Major Tony French, a staff officer dealing with transition issues. Matters discussed included: (i) The British Army offers training in “life skills” in accordance with Joint Service Publication 100 (JSP 100) entitled “Defence Holistic Transition Policy” (ii) staff officers regularly give advice to service personnel in financial difficulty (iii) there are estimated to be 250 homeless veterans in the London area (iv) Some 70,000 veterans are not claiming their pension benefits.

FLW talked about the importance of providing mentors with military backgrounds which veterans could relate to.

BG spoke about some of the broader welfare issues which were giving Gurkha veterans such difficulty.

CFM mentioned the work that Stuart Tootal of Barclays had undertaken in setting up veterans’ employment support.

Health

AR reported on her involvement with the national veterans’ ad hoc committee on health matters and also on her recent visit to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. She mentioned that ambulance staff were now placing poppy emblems on hospital beds to identify ex-forces patients so that they would receive appropriately tailored clinical support.

BC asked AR to identify those aspects of the health committee’s work which could be converted into practical recommendations.

Action: AR

Feedback from veterans

FLW reported on recent feedback from veterans she had met. These veterans had included Brigadier Ed Butler. Issues identified were:

• (i) the transitioning process was less successful for other ranks compared with officers
• (ii) the mentoring provided was not considered helpful in many cases
• (iii) mental health problems were expected to surge
• (iv) there was a lack of willingness to address the issues faced by veterans with complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
• (v) there was a consistent failure by MOD and its contractors to process applications to pay pension and compensation entitlements on a timely basis
• (vi) there was a strong appetite among veterans for transitioning and mental health apps

Processing of pensions by veterans

BC had circulated an email chain and a draft report and recommendation under the SI to the Minister. Vets UK had declined to answer the questions raised on 2 November 2021 relating to the administration of the compensation schemes, namely:

• (i) what targets are set for the performance of standard targets in claims and appeals
• (ii) an indication as to how the performance of standard tasks is measured and recorded against those targets
• (iii) how the data gathered on the performance of standard tasks is used in the management of the day to day work
• (iv) how this data is used in the setting of key performance indicators based on average turnaround times and so what “waiting time” is included, and
• (v) whether and why Veterans UK considers its performance of these tasks is good, satisfactory or unsatisfactory

BC explained that he understood that this request had been repeated in a meeting about data that had taken place earlier during the day with other chairs and that further information or explanation may be forthcoming as a result. He therefore thought it was too early to send the proposed report and recommendation the Minister but asked members to indicate whether they supported his continued attempts to get this information and offer the assistance set out in the email chain.

Various members of the committee expressed concerns that a substantive response had not been received and stressed that an evidence based approach was critical to the work of the committee. BC was asked to continue to pursue the matter He indicated that he would inform the ad hoc national finance committee of the email, chain and the prospect of sending a report and recommendation to the Minister and would circulate any such proposed report and recommendation to members for approval before sending it on behalf of LVAPC. Action: BC

Next steps

BC mentioned that he was working with LS on a one page communications document.. It was agreed that this was a vital first step. A draft prepared by LS (and others) had been circulated before the meeting that had not taken account of the recent advertisement for members in other regions.

BC said that he had concluded that to avoid delay and to recognise the independence of the regions the Comms document should be focused on LVAPC.

LS had not been able to join because of computer problems and BC indicated that he would work with him to produce a Comms document and would circulate it for substantive comments by early January.
Action: BC and LS

Mention has already been made of national ad hoc sub groups or committees set up by or through the ad hoc committee of chairs by reference to the themes of the veterans strategy (e.g the health committee). BC said that as he understood it the approach of the ad hoc committee of chairs would be to use these ad hoc sub groups to report or assist in reporting under the TOR. They also provide a useful means to pass information and promote co-operation. He added that he would seek to ensure that reports from the LVAPC and the Regional Committee for London in an unedited form were provided to the Ministers under the TOR whatever approach was taken by other regions and those ad hoc sub groups or committees.

BC said that he understood that a current focus of the Minister for Defence People was on the issues of employment and transitioning. A national ad hoc sub group or committee on this theme was planned but its head and membership had not yet been identified. At the meeting of the ad hoc committee of chairs on 14 December BC had said that he would ask FRH if he was happy to be its head. He was pleased to report that FRH had agreed to have his name put forward.

The national group addressing this theme of the Veterans Strategy will largely mirror work already being done by the members of our Employment and Financial Education Committees and BC expressed the hope that they would all participate in the national committee being formed around employment and transitioning issues.

BC will confirm to the chair or chair that FRH is happy to be the head of this national ad hoc committee and group and if appointed its head that he will prepare proposed terms of reference for circulation to other regions who will be asked to identify members. In his report to the meeting BC had identified other areas of focus for members of LVAPC and the Regional Committee going forward there was little time for discussion on these but general consensus that they would include support for the Armed Forces Champions Network in London, employment transition and financial education, getting communications out to MPs and London Boroughs, the ongoing work on apps, work related to the administration of the compensation schemes by Vets UK and work with the research student for Kent University (as and when he was in a position to start). BC repeated that any member who wanted to pursue other areas of work can and should suggest them.
Action: BC and FRH

Any other business

There was no other business.

Noted that the meetings for 2022 are at 4pm on:

• 23 March
• 22 June
• 21 September
• 14 December

Addendum

For reasons unconnected with the invitation in the TOR Matthew Seward and Rebecca Lefort have resigned as members of LVAPC.

The remaining members and so:

• Sir Bill Charles (BC) – Chairman
• Jim Blake (JB)
• Caroline Flynn Macleod (CFM)
• Annabel Goulding (AG)
• Bishnu Gurung (BG)
• Robin Herzberg (FRH)
• Carl Hunter (CH)
• Oliver Leeming (OL)
• Nick Mazzei (NM)
• Wendy Morris (WM)
• Matthew Neave (MN)
• Charles Perrett (CP)
• Alpa Raja (AR)
• Nick Mazzei (NM)
• Brian Willmore (BW)
• Alex Woolgar-Toms (AWT)
• Frances Luczyc Wyhowska (FLW)
• Larry Stone (LS)

have all accepted the invitation in paragraph 5(a) of the TOR to act as members of an informal group (a ‘Regional Group’) so long as they are members of that VAPC or until the withdrawal of that invitation.

Sir Bill Charles has also accepted the invitation in paragraph 5(b) of the TOR to chair the Regional Group so long as he remains chair of LVAPC or until the withdrawal of that invitation.

This addendum is the record of the acceptance or refusal of these invitations and of the invitation in paragraph 7 below to be recorded by each VAPC.

Paragraph 7 of the TOR is in the following terms:

the Minister hereby invites the members of the Regional Groups to carry out the following activities relating to all veterans and their families:

a. Provide a distinct, identifiable, and independent point of reference in their region for both the Veteran community and all those supporting it to raise, respond to and promote issues relating to Veterans Services, the Strategy for our Veterans and the Armed Forces Covenant (the Covenant)

b. Raise awareness of and support the implementation of Veterans Services, in particular:

• i. the Veterans’ Welfare Service (VWS) and the Defence Transition Services (DTS)
• ii. the Covenant, what it means and does not mean, and the forthcoming Covenant duty (being introduced as part of the Armed Forces Bill 2021) on local public bodies to have due regard to its principles

c. act as an advocate, promoter, facilitator, or communicator of Veterans Services provided by government, central and local authorities, stakeholders, charities, and others

d. report and make representations and recommendations on existing or proposed Veterans Services, The Strategy for our Veterans and the Covenant to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans (the Minister), the Armed Forces Covenant Team in the Ministry of Defence (the MOD) and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs (OVA) in the Cabinet Office; and

e. liaise, cooperate, and share information on issues of common interest relating to the delivery of Veterans Services with Regional Groups for other areas of the United Kingdom and others, including regimental associations; and

f. any other specific taskings made by the Minister, the OVA or the Armed Forces Covenant Team in the MOD