Guidance

VAPC London: meeting minutes 21 September 2022

Updated 19 September 2024

Venue: Barclays Rise, 41 Luke Street, London EC2A 4DP with some members joining using Microsoft Teams

Time: 4pm to 5.30pm

Present

• Sir Bill Charles (BC) – Chairman
• Annabel Goulding (AG)
• Bishnu Gurung (BG)
• Robin Herzberg (FRH)
• Alpa Raja (AR)
• Larry Stone (LS)
• Brian Willmore (BW)
• Frances Luczyc Wyhowska (FLW)

Apologies

• Jim Blake (JB)
• Caroline Flynn Macleod (CFM)
• Carl Hunter (CH)
• Oliver Leeming (OL)
• Nick Mazzei (NM)
• Wendy Morris (WM)
• Matthew Neave (MN)
• Charles Perrett (CP)
• Alex Woolgar-Toms (AWT)

Welcome

The chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Apologies for absence

It was noted that JB, CFM, OL, NM, WM, MN, CP and AW-T had been unable to attend, and that CH had been unable to connect to the meeting. It was also noted that OL had resigned.

Minutes of 23 March 2022 meeting

The minutes, which had been circulated, were approved and ready to be sent to the Ministry of Defence for publication.

Action: FRH

Resignation of the chair

BC advised the committee that he had decided to resign as the chair of the London Veterans Advisory & Pensions Committee (‘LVAPC’) and its informal regional group.

BC explained that he had been recruited on the understanding that the LVAPC was a statutory committee whose members had functions relating to all veterans. This was not the case and since then he had played a central role in resolving this situation by (i) creating a two-tier system – VAPCs given functions by secondary legislation, and informal groups being formed and given functions by Terms of Reference (ToRs) and (ii) obtaining Ministerial support for a private members bill to achieve this. However, as the bill was not being proposed by a ballot winner, there remained a significant risk that it will not introduce the necessary primary legislation soon or at all.

BC went on to say that if the members of LVAPC were to add real value to the introduction of improvements, they must act, and be seen to act, independently. For a variety of reasons, including the attitude of Veterans UK the process of distilling the recommendations through the committee of regional chairs, and the approach of the committee of chairs and its chair, he did not believe that there was a realist prospect of this happening.

All members of the committee agreed that they were deeply saddened by BC’s decision.

The future involvement of members

BC said that members of the committee would have to consider individually what value they could bring to LVAPC. In his view, members would only be able to add real value if they became actively involved between meetings in the activities of one or more of the national subcommittees or our sub-committees or other projects

BC observed that some members of the LVAPC were already active in the national subcommittees which are as follows: Healthcare (AR already involved), Finance (AG already involved), Employment & Transitioning (FRH, LS and FLW already involved), Veterans & The Law (AG already involved), Support Group (FRH already involved).

BC emphasized that, in the context of the lack of an existing structure for communicating independent recommendations to ministers and their response in an appropriate way, members would have to investigate the use of alternative routes of communication. He noted that CFM had undertaken important work reaching out to members of parliament to advise them of the committee’s work so that we could communicate our recommendations to date but had so far received limited response.

AR stressed the importance of making sure that all recommendations and discussions were kept at a strategic level.

FLW talked about the benefits of using alternative networks to communicate findings and talked about the many organizations with whom she was in touch who could act as our advocates and vice versa

LS advocated a bifurcated approach using both (i) the existing formal route of communication i.e. through the committee of regional chairs, and (ii) informal means of communication i.e. personal networks.

ARBW and BG all indicated support for testing these approaches. AG indicated that she saw merit in them over the remainder of her three yeas term but wanted to consider her position. JB had informed BC before the meeting that he wanted to remain in post.

Next steps

It was agreed that the focus of future work would be through (i) our membership of the various national steering groups and (ii) the work being undertaken Alex Page and others to map veteran support across the London boroughs.

The proposed governance document for the council of chairs

It was noted that the proposed document was as good as we were likely to get, notwithstanding the concerns about independence already expressed, and it was agreed to approve the document.

Selection of an interim chair

BC indicated that the only nomination that he had received was for FRH to be appointed interim chair and that AWT supported this. There were no other nominations during the meeting, and it was therefore agreed that FRH should be appointed interim chair until a formal selection process could be carried out by the Cabinet Office to identify a permanent replacement.

Preparation of the report under the terms of reference

BC had circulated the first draft of the report which was due to be submitted to Anica Alvarez Nishio by 30 September 2022 so that she could prepare an executive summary for discussion with the minister in November 2022.

It was agreed that FRH should amend the draft already circulated (i) to summarise some correspondence between BC and Brigadier Caroline Hull,(ii) to incorporate recommendations from the national subcommittee on employment and transitioning and (iii) include the outcome of this meeting

It was also agreed that FRH should circulate a further draft of the report and, subject to any comments received, he be authorized to finalise the report and submit it.

Reports from the teams and members

FRH reported on the work of the national subcommittee on employment and transitioning which had involved (i) discussions with Mark Evans of “Waterloo Uncovered” (ii) a paper from Larry Stone on employment and transitioning in the United States and (iii) discussions with Tim Jones of “Positive Transition”. These discussions had generated a significant number of recommendations. FRH thanked LS and FLW for their important work on the subcommittee.

Any other business

FLW reported that Sarah Atherton had been appointed a junior minister at the Ministry of Defence and that there was expectation that she would become the minister for veterans.

AR agreed to liaise with Alex Page to obtain a diary of future of events that might be of interest to members.

BC reported that a review of Veterans UK had been announced but stressed that it would only be effective if it was independent. He expressed the view that any review should distinguish between (i) the rules of the compensation schemes, which may or may not need changing and (ii) the administration of the existing schemes which, based on anecdotal evidence, certainly did need improving.

All members agreed that BC should be given a vote of thanks for his leadership and his extensive work as chair of the committee.