Guidance

VAPC south west England: meeting minutes 4 May, 28 June and 18 September 2020

Updated 10 January 2024

Attendance

The following were able to join on one or more of the meetings:

Committee members:

Paul Cartwright (PC)	Nigel Lewis (NL)	Andrew Ottaway (AO)
Hamilton Elliott (HE)	David Newson (DN)	Franklin Owusu-Antwi (FO-A)
Ash Jones (AJ)	Anica Alvarez Nishio (AAN)	Jeff Spenser (JS)

Guests

Louis Gardner

Emma Jones (EJ) - VWS

Aaron Hymas (AH) - DTS

Apologies

• Ben Bennington
• David Wood (DW)
• Vaughan Magor

Decisions

Meeting on 5 May 2020

In April and May, PC invited Committee comments on draft papers covering VAPC Strategy, Key Performance indicators (KPIs) and Communications. For background to this meeting, therefore, the following is a summary of the SW view:

Strategy

Generally very supportive: liked that it was aspirational (ambitious) but achievable (with sufficient will and resources).

Liked the concept of Advocate, Advise and Assist (SW are using Awareness, Advice and Assist). ‘Advocate’ focused on national policy and ‘Advise’ is regionally focused. The emphasis should be on delivery of AF Covenant rather than WPS/AFCS.

On individual cases, VAPC should develop detail on what powers VAPC should have, e.g. recourse to a high level joint arbitration group to decide outcomes, to improve cross-govt working practices and to correct generic issues.

Liked the 10 objectives (especially if slightly amended).

No mention of a possible name change for VAPC?

No mention of the Veterans Strategy? HMG have laid out what they intend to deliver (although not yet said how) so our objectives should at least tip a hat to that.

KPIs

KPIs were generally seen as necessary but the draft ones were not liked. Principally because they need to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely).

KPIs need metrics and owners.

Good practice must take account of regional variations.

Regional Chairs should concentrate on leading the Regions, not on leading national work strands.

Strand leads should be committee members with a particular interest in that subject or a dedicated VAPC team who are not members of regional committees. Either should report to Chair of Chairs.

Maximum of 8 strands (the Veteran Strategy key themes with ‘community and relationship’ and ‘making a home in civil society’ combined and 3 supporting roles): Local Authorities/AF Champions; NHS/wellbeing; Offenders; Finance and Debt; Employment; Communications/marketing (including stakeholder engagement, building contacts, developing partnerships where not done in the above); Research/data; Governance.

Governance is the unglamorous but important underpin: how we work (authority/independence, giving and responding to direction, accountability, e.g. business model), make and save records, protect data (GDPR), share information, handle complaints, interact with outside agencies (including the media) etc.

Need to be really careful re Mental Health: a minefield and the suggestion that some/many are “jumping on the band wagon”.

Members with project management experience had lots of advice on KPIs/metrics. VAPC should concentrate on agreeing the strategy (especially the objectives) and then form a group of ‘experts’ drawn from across the regions who could work up the KPIs, especially the criteria to gauge the effectiveness of AF delivery (such as the AF Covenant Team’s ‘Forces Friendly Framework’).

Conclusion

We like the Strategy and think it is achievable, although it probably needs 4 almost full-time staff (to manage comms (x2), admin support to Chair of Chairs and strand leaders, KPI manager). But more must be done on marketing VAPC (get known and understood where it matters) and there is no mention of a budget/budget management!

Meeting

The meeting itself was largely a back brief by PC on the VAPC Chairs meeting of 29 April, where Chairs agreed to:

Rewrite the VAPC strategic plan following regional chair input. A final draft to be discussed via VTC later in June.

Develop a simple ‘business model’ diagram to assist in the marketing of VAPC.

Rewrite the KPIs. Especially how we might assess local authorities. Chris Thomas (NW VAPC) is leading on this and PC suggested that, given his LA experience, DW should be involved.

Communications strategy. Johnny Lighten (Chair) and Barry Smith (Comms lead) thanked JS for his considerable work towards a comms strategy and his way ahead was endorsed. JS is busy working up the next stage (principally getting the other Regions to sign up). It was proposed that JS would be the VAPC rep on the Vets UK led digitisation project panel, which hopes to start ‘meeting’ in July.

Governance. VAPC has no Governance plan to underpin its work. PC volunteered to lead on this.

Recruiting was also discussed: a brief analysis showed we needed reps for Devon, Dorset, and bits of Glos & Somerset.

Meeting on 29 June 2020

PC highlighted Stephen Rowland-Jones’s (SR-J) resignation.

A brief discussion on Recruiting. Agreed that it was better to go out and find new members than rely on the job advert (which will advertise from Jul to Oct). SW is under-represented in Devon (other than Plymouth), Dorset, South Somerset, and some parts of Gloucestershire. JS has found 2 people who are interested.

Outstanding actions

Due to Covid restrictions, it was agreed to drop the aspiration to visit a H4H recovery centre.

Chair and chairs update

PC updated the SW on Chair of Chairs work:

Plea from Johnny Lighten (Chair) to use VFR Hub.

OVA is starting to get traction (as it recruits more staff) and gathering information on how Covid-19 has affected veterans.

The possibility that Veterans would be given advantages, such as a guaranteed interview scheme, was discussed. Felt that the current ‘level playing field’ was a better aspiration.

Vets UK need a Business Continuity Plan as their level of support in the last 3 months has been inadequate. This has been raised with MPs.

General agreement with latest, more achievable VAPC strategic objectives and KPIs. Gives more freedom to regional VAPCs (see governance below).

JS presented his Comms Paper and sticking point was getting someone to be Webmaster – OVA to be approached for help.

Work going on through small surveys of veterans in small pilot areas on local government authority (LGA) implementation of AF Covenant compliance, led by Yorkshire and Humber (Alex Baxter). Intent is to establish a single point of contact for LGA & MOD analysis of LGA performance.

West Midlands are also doing a pilot on similar lines to the above and both are connected to what we have started with our SW LGA performance work strand.

Chairs agreed that each area should have a NHS lead. Post meeting note: JS will be lead for the SW.

PC sent a Governance questionnaire to every Chair. Most (just) replied. General (majority) view is that:

• we are accountable to Parliament via Min DPV.
• we should not become another quango that spends too much time reporting upwards and not enough time looking out for our customers (Veterans being properly supported).
• although Vets UK provides us with support, they should not be an additional step/gatekeeper in the above reporting chain.
• we are 13 independent VAPCs, as per the Statutory Instrument (SI), with every committee having the right to report to the Minister on certain matters. Any change to these arrangements would require a further Parliamentary SI.
• the Chair of Chairs is a forum to exchange ideas across the regions but not to dictate how regions should operate.
• SI and governance are out of date as they do not address the issue of VAPCs having additional responsibility for ‘consistent delivery of the AF Covenant’. This probably requires greater central control at the expense of less independent regions.
• before requesting changes to VAPC governance, however, we should ensure Min DPV/OVA are on the same page about the future direction of VAPC.

It was decided not to pursue an event for VAPC 100 at the national arboretum, meaning, in effect, that only regional events should be considered.

Discussion on the above included: concern being shown, from Veterans’ feedback, about Vets UK performance during lockdown (no new payments being considered, further delays with existing ones); the lack of uncertainty due to the proposed VAPC strategy and whether it would be endorsed at Ministerial/OVA level; and our ability to engage with Ministers without ‘outer office’ interference.

DTS update

AH updated the Committee on DTS activity: a reduction in referrals (to 2 to 3 a week), with accommodation being Veterans’ main concern.

VWS update

EJ, the new VWS Regional Manager South, updated the Committee on VWS and Vets UK activity, which had been constrained by Covid, and The Integrated Personal Commissioning for Veterans (IPC4V) framework. A written brief was provided.

Covenant activity

This has been limited in lockdown but AF Champions were discussed: FO-A is S Gloucester AF Champion, NL had spoken to the N Devon AF Champion about housing. This led to a discussion about housing: agreement that it was a key issue (based on Veteran feedback): Bristol City Council has spare housing. S Gloucester to be a member of SW Connect.

SW plan update

Due to the uncertainty over the way forward for VAPC, work strand leads were reluctant to develop their elements of the SW Plan. Following SR-J’s departure, a lead for ‘Charities & Employers’ was required (post meeting note: as yet, no takers). PC agreed to update the National Issues list on the VFR Hub. JS briefed on his NHS Initiative. It was agreed that supporting this would be the Committee’s priority until the VAPC Strategy had been endorsed.

Casework

Only one case being monitored by SW VAPC, which is on-going.

AOB

One member put their name forward for Vice Chair (JS), although others have enquired about the role. It was agreed that Jeff Spencer should be appointed as Vice Chair for one year.

Meeting 18 September 2020

OVA board

The Committee expressed their disappointment about a lack of VAPC involvement in developing the function and composition of the OVA Board. There was concern that this had been an unadvertised/unselected process (unlike VAPCs).

The covenant

Discussion followed on AF Champions, local authority (LA) AF Boards and their links to charities and how this varied across LAs. The AF Champions conference was advertised (post meeting note: PC placed feedback from this on the VFR Hub). Feedback suggested Veterans do not understand the Covenant because those charged with delivering it (e.g. LAs) can pick and choose where the Covenant should be met. It was agreed that relevant websites, such as Veterans Gateway, should show who is implementing which parts of the Covenant (e.g. guaranteed interview scheme)

NHS project

JS outlined that VAPC SW are helping trial a veterans’ care delivery platform. Accessed via existing NHS computer systems (e.g. CLARITY), it provides a ‘one stop’ portal that helps frontline NHS providers, with the cooperation of their veteran patients, deliver more effective care. It also aids better planning and resource allocation by collecting anonymised data on veterans’ locations, needs, and the services used.

Veterans’ associations

FO-A noted that although there were numerous Vets’ Associations, there was no official body, such as a Federation of Veteran’s Associations, that ensured a stronger, recognised voice for Veterans. Compared with the 450+ Armed Forces/Veterans’’ charities and COBSEO.

Outstanding actions (PC)

Following reviews of actions at the meetings on 29 June and 18 Sep, it was agreed to scrub all outstanding actions.

PC to inform Vets UK of those requiring VAPC ID Cards.

Some members had taken this offer up. Another circulation would occur once new members had been recruited. VAPC ID cards can be obtained directly from Vets UK.

PC to inform Vets UK of trend in use of companies (who charge significant fees) for Military Injury Claims.

PC outlined the discussion held at the Chair of Chairs meeting on this subject, which also highlighted the difficulties being faced during medical assessments. There was discussion about ATOS, whose questions were focused on stopping people claiming benefits and hence why so many Veterans were appealing and using fee-charging companies. It was noted that more charities were giving pensions advice as RBL no longer ran a full pensions advice service. Advice given by charities was not always good (RBL were good) and they were passing on a lot of casework to Irwin Mitchell (solicitors). Civilian doctors too easily assume that Veterans with problems have PTSD. CF recommended a RBL rep that could brief the Committee in more depth.

CF to provide PC with contact details of RBL rep and PC to invite to a future meeting.

CF has now left. A RBL rep may be invited in future.

Recruiting

PC to raise the issue of advertising for members with non-military/non-charity backgrounds at Chairs. 2020 recruiting drive now complete. A ‘Gap Analysis’ will be done once the 2021 committee has formed up to identify where we lack skills and regional coverage.