Guidance

VAPC London: meeting minutes 22 September 2021

Updated 19 December 2024

Venue: Microsoft teams

Time: 4pm to 5.45pm

Present

• Bill Charles (BC) – Chairman
• Jim Blake (JB)
• Ken Courtenay (KC)
• Caroline Flynn Macleod (CFM)
• Carl Hunter (CH)
• Annabel Goulding (AG)
• Bishnu Gurung (BG)
• Robin Herzberg (FRH)
• Oliver Leeming (OL)
• Frances Luczyc Wyhowska (FLW)
• Nick Mazzei (NM)
• Wendy Morris (WM)
• Matthew Neave (MN)
• Charles Perrett (CP)
• Matthew Seward (MS)
• Larry Stone (LS)
• Brian Willmore (BW)

Apologies

• Alpa Raja (AR)
• Rebecca Lefort (RL)
• Alex Woolgar Toms (AWT)

Observers/guests

• Alex Page (Covenant in the Capital)

Welcome

BC welcomed everyone to the meeting

Apologies for absence

It was noted that AR and AWT were unable to attend. RL had emailed BC saying that she could not attend due to childcare issues.

Minutes of 19 May 2021 and 23 June 2021 meetings

The minutes had been circulated and approved and were now published by the Ministry of Defence (MOD).

Discussion on BC’s report

BC reported that the Office of Veterans Affairs (OVA) and MOD had now sent their proposed Terms of Reference (TOR). BC pointed out that this would create a two-group system (a statutory committee for matters relating to WPS and AFCS claimants and their families and a parallel informal group relating to all veterans and so the Veterans Strategy and AF Covenant). BC indicated that in his view this fell short of what had been sought and what members had been recruited to do (i.e., to be members of a statutory committee with statutory functions relating to all veterans) but was an improvement on the existing muddle and consequent lack of authority and clarity.

The chairs had (with some comments and concerns) accepted the proposed TOR as they had concluded that further discussion / negotiation with officials was unlikely to lead to any significant change / progress and the TORs were an improvement on the existing position as they provided a platform from which VAPCs could focus on helping veterans.. They were waiting on a response from the minister’s office and the OVA. A concern is that the informal nature of the functions relating to all veterans has the real potential to dilute the independence, and so usefulness and effectiveness, of the VAPCs.

Another is that the proposed TOR fails to meet the advertised expectations of appointment to a statutory committee and it seems that the assertion made by officials when the possibility of statutory amendment through the AF Bill was abandoned by the chairs in the Spring of 2021 that statutory amendment would be addressed in 2022 may no longer be planned and may have been inaccurate. Others, mentioned in his report, are the possibility of over centralisation, the lack of clarity on the roles of the ad hoc council of chairs and its chair and how regions should report.

BC reported that with the help of CFM he had been in contact with Lord Lancaster following his contribution to the debate on the AF Bill in the House of Lords. He had responded seeking a meeting with BC – hopefully in the week beginning 11 October to discuss the possibility of introducing an amendment into the AF Bill to enable VAPCs to be given statutory powers relating to all veterans (BC had sent him a suggested draft and had informed the other chairs of this approach).

In BC’s view, a forceful argument for this is that it would enable the Minister on the review after a year envisaged by the proposed TOR to convert the remit of the informal groups to a statutory remit in line with the representations made on past recruitment and the expectation they created.

However, on any timetable (as envisaged in the draft TOR proposed by the chairs) an interim period pending legislation needs to be addressed and a fair and informed review at its end has advantages. The existence of a power to make an SI giving functions in respect of all veterans does not mean that the power has to be exercised – but if it is not in existence the option of making a SI is unavailable.

CFM expressed concerns as to the MOD’s and the OVA’s intentions in relation to the future of VAPCs and indicated support for Lord Lancaster’s suggestion to seek an amendment to the AF Bill and confirmed that his view was that unless this was achieved a statutory vehicle to amend the enabling power would be 5 years away. CFM also expressed and reinforced the concerns referred to in para. 1 above. She indicated that she would be happy to attend the meeting between BC and Lord Lancaster.

Action: BC and CFM

Several members expressed concerns that the system would be overcomplicated; they also expressed concerns about the lack of meetings with ministers.

There was general support for the approach being taken with Lord Lancaster and the need to try to ensure direct access of VAPCs to the relevant ministers.

BC indicated that so long as all members accepted the invitation to be members of the informal regional groups the two-group system could operate without complication through joint meetings and minutes. If some members do not accept the invitation, they would not take part in decisions about functions given by the TOR.

BC ended by confirming that it was a matter for each member to decide whether to accept the invitation in the proposed TOR as and when it was made by them. He would continue to seek clarification on issues that are relevant to that decision.

Reports from the teams

Employment

FRH was heading up the Employment group and working with NM and LS. He had prepared a paper which had been circulated.

FRH reported that the Employment group have currently identified the following issues:

• (i) The Royal British Legion estimates there aresome 120,000 unemployed veterans
• (ii) DRM needs more resources tasked with ensuring that employers that have not been recognised with an award under the Defence Employer Recognition Scheme fully comply with their commitments under the Armed Forces Covenant
• (iii) There is a need for more focus on ensuring that service leavers become assessed by appropriate professional bodies before they leave: a way to achieve this would be to establish a network of training hubs around the UK
• (iv) There is a need for a renewed focus on promoting the employment of veterans with strong support from industry groups, advocacy from trade body management and strong leadership from the CEOs of individual companies
• (v) The support for service leavers from some minority groups is very poor, particularly for people from the BAME community
• (vi) The UK Government has proposed that non-UK personnel currently on transition will be eligible for a waiver for their settlement fees if they have served 12 years or who are being medically discharged. The view of the Royal British Legion is that this should be 4 years, reflecting existing residency requirements and that families should also be included in the scheme
• (vii) There is currently no initiative to support veterans who are currently without settled status

NM emphasised the importance of supporting overseas veterans: he had been actively involved in pursuing a case and supporting a suicidal veteran in South Africa. That veteran had now been turned around and there is a challenge ahead in obtaining support for his girlfriend. He also expressed concerns that, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now over, the public consciousness of the need support veterans may reduce.

CH expressed a concern that the Armed Forces Covenant may have recently lost some of its impetus.

CFM asked about veterans not being high on the list of priorities for “captains of industry”. CFM noted that the MOD regularly puts out a list of companies that have signed up to the Armed Forces Covenant, CFM asked if we are able to look specifically at the London region.

CP noted that he has spoken to the head of DRM for the London region and he knows that when they speak to companies about the armed forces covenant, veterans and their families do form part of that focus. Companies that join the covenant are informed of the benefits of employing service leavers in relation to their skill sets and the value-add to a company.

It was generally acknowledged that the scheme as a whole has ‘run out of steam’. CP noted that he agreed, and that Afghanistan and Iraq will become further removed from the public conscious, and so maintaining the relevance of the covenant is critical.

JB explained that he ran the national employers liaison committee which was the forerunner of the covenant. JB would like to dig further into the 120,000 unemployed veterans figure. JB noted that there are very well qualified and employed veterans, but the difficulty comes with transferable educational standards.

For example, in the infantry whilst they have leadership skills etc, service leaders may not have the academic qualifications that might be necessary for employment. JB thinks it would be helpful to dig down into the statistics and identify those most in need.

RH confirmed that they can look into the figures, but the figures have come from the Royal British Legion rather than the OVA. RH mentioned from his own experience of working with the MOD that they are only really now getting into the detail of regional figures, and that there is a political focus on this at the moment. RH noted that the employment team can try and push for that.

MS fed back on the figure of 120,000 unemployed veterans as it came from the Royal British Legion and noted that the figure dates from 2014 so are dated. The MOD produced some figures over the following years that were broadly similar, and it is hoped more up to date figures will be available next year.

FLW noted that the more junior people in HR departments should be made aware of the priority/benefits of recruiting veterans, as otherwise people can be overlooked. CP highlighted that the DRM has been pushing the different bronze, silver and gold levels of membership for the covenant. In order to achieve silver status a company needs to have an active policy on engagement with military personnel and service leavers.

BG was interested to know whether transport operators falling under the regulation of Transport for London were fully committed to the Armed Forces Covenant. He raised the possibility of engaging with TFL as they are not welcoming veterans, and there are many veterans with transferable qualifications. CP ran a search and noted that in February 2016 TFL signed the armed forces covenant and created 100 new employment opportunities for ex-service members.

BC’s link had failed for much of this discussion. On his return he thanked CFM for chairing in his absence and this team for their hard and effective work.

Gurkha welfare

FRH had also circulated a paper on Gurkha Welfare, another issue which the Employment group had been considering.

FRH referred to the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) report dated October 2014 and the MOD response dated January 2015. He reported that a Gurkha WO2 retiring before 1997 after 22 years’ service would receive a pension of around £4,000 whereas a soldier from another regiment would receive around £13,000 plus state pension of around £8,000 for example, £21,000 in total. Gurkhas who were receiving just £4,000 were struggling financially. Possible actions might be:

• (i) to submit a Freedom of Information Request seeking an update on the cost of establishing parity, which was £1.5-billion (based on 2009 estimates) and,
• (ii) to lodge a submission with the Parliamentary Ombudsman asking the ombudsman to consider whether the communications with the Gurkhas on National Insurance credits had been sufficient.

Action: CP and AP

MS mentioned that a bilateral committee has been established by the MOD to consider the issue.

Several members expressed concern that this was a sensitive issue and it was agreed that the Employment group should for the present do no more than ask the Gurkha community whether it had considered the actions suggested.

Whether LVAPC would do anything in respect of this issue in the future was something we could return to. It was generally recognised and agreed that we would need to be accurate and independent and from those starting points able to advance positive suggestions.

Action: FRM

Financial education

AG was heading up this group and working with MN and FRH. She explained that the team was still at the fact-finding stage and had produced a questionnaire for service personnel to support that work.

AG reported that a meeting had been arranged with Major Tony Finch to understand more about transition and the teaching of life skills.

She and FRH confirmed the overlap between parts of their approach – particularly relating to the need to inform veterans of relevant issues and avenues of support before they left service.

BC thanked the team for their hard and effective work.

Regional outreach

CP and AP reported on this. The event CP had planned on a ship in September to which representatives of the boroughs were to be invited had, for various reasons, not gone ahead.

Action: LS and BC

AP confirmed that she found attendance at our meetings helpful and that she and CP were considering and assessing how best LVAPC could co-operate with her and others in promoting best practice in their dealings with veterans and consistent application of the AF Covenant across the boroughs. They were pursuing a two-stage approach. First, establishing the “ground / space” in which the boroughs were operating and in particular what resources were available through for example established networks and supporting communities. To this end a meeting was fixed for 6 October. Second, with this information they would develop and suggest a proposal for LVAPC’s contact and work with the boroughs.

CFM expressed concerns that the number of veterans with health issues being referred to health specialists was in decline: AP noted this and it was something she would try to look into.

The prospect of this having an impact of Afghan was raised.

Additional

BC suggested that to promote action and to inform ourselves about the best approach to other issues LVAPC should focus on the issues already identified the Employment and Financial Education groups and the proposal to be made by Regional Outreach.

This will involve some integration of the efforts of these three groups who could look for support from the members of other teams as appropriate.

The Parliamentary and GLA group will continue with its work separately and will use the product of these work streams – hopefully to demonstrate that LVAPC is adding value.

Other members of the LVAPC will continue with their existing initiatives as they think appropriate but the focus would initially be on the issues raised by two teams going forward:

• (i) Employment and Financial Education and,
• (ii) Regional Outreach, followed by those raised by Regional Outreach

As has been identified an aspect of moving from “fact finding” to action will be a paper or document on engagement that sets out who we are, what our remit, how we work and can engage with veterans and suppliers of services and so how we work to add value. LS offered to develop his current paper on engagement which BC had used in a later draft circulated with his report to the meeting.

This cannot be finalised until the functions issue is clearer and so effectively until it is known that the Minister has signed a TOR to cover the period up to the review envisaged by the departmental proposal.

Appointment of a new secretary/future meetings

BC explained that there was a need for a new secretary and explained what this role would involve.

FRH offered to take on the role and confirmed that he was content to take the minutes and be the nominated secretarial contact with MOD. He asked, however, if MS would be kind enough to continue issuing the Microsoft Teams invitations for future meetings.

BC confirmed that he was happy with this arrangement and that he and FRH would co-operate on the minutes and keep under review their roles as receivers and communicators of information

Action: FRH/MS

BC reported that FLW may have identified a suitable venue for future meetings. (After the meeting, FLW has confirmed the availability of this venue at the date and time of the meeting already planned in December).

Action: FRH and BC

It was also agreed that the committee should meet at the selected venue to the extent that that this was possible but that there should be dial in facility for members who could not be at the selected location.

Action: FLW

It was also agreed that 16.00 was a suitable time of day for meetings.

AOB

FLW emphasized the importance of transitioning from the first day of a service person’s career. CP confirmed that this was the existing approach. How it is working may be an issue to investigate.

JB observed that the results of the 2021 census would provide greater insight into the number of unemployed veterans and in which London Boroughs those veterans were located.

AP reminded the committee that, Data Protection Act requirements caused significant problems in tracking veterans after they had left the armed forces.