Attendees:

Graham Cable (Chair)

Dan Brooks (DB) (Vice Chair)

John Scivier (JS) (Secretary)

Patrick Lyster-Todd (PLT)

Kate Steels (KS) – first 30 minutes (meeting clash)

Ian Talbot (IT)

Robin Draper (RD) (first 40 minutes)

Craig Jones (CJ)

Guest - Stewart Blackburn (SB) - Chair of Chairs - Until 10am

Guest - Dr Sarah Austin (SA) - Chair - Beyond the Wire - From 10am

Apologies:

Clive Hunt (CH)

Debra Soper (DS)

Keith Malcolm (KM)

Gary Cass (GC)

Absent

Ali Grant (AG)

Colin Howe (cHo)

1. Apologies

Received from KM, CH, DS, GC

2. Welcome

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. The present members were invited to introduce themselves.

• JS remarked that the MS365 software he has does not allow for the recording of virtual teams meetings. It was commented that this is another disconnect from the communication systems that we should be provided with by DBS.

3. Minutes of previous meetings

All present accepted.

4. Brief by Stewart Blackburn - Chair Committee of VAPC Chairs

• The change in Government and the appointment of the new Minister for Veterans and People (Min. V&P) continues to hold the VAPCs in limbo. Attempts have been made to engage with the Minister but as yet, no face-to-face meeting has been programmed. SB pointed out the 50% increase in portfolio responsibility that the new minister has been given, including the serving military community.

• Concern was raised by RD about the removal of the ‘P’ from VAPC. SB informed the group that this was not now going to be the case unless the secondary legislation included a change in name.

• A new study has been commissioned by Min. V&P and named Op Valour. Three 1* officers (military, civil service and voluntary sector) have been appointed to report on what is happening in the veteran’s space (gleaning information from various reviews, charities and veteran support agencies). The report is due to be presented to the minister some time in December.

• The delayed annual report to the minister will have a number of evidence-based recommendations. SB remarked on the proposed survey that was being formulated by a number of VAPC members and which had been sent to the regions for comment. Subsequently, and following further engagement with professional bodies, it was realised that the survey in its proposed format was not fit for purpose and if a survey is used to generate evidence, it needs to be right.

• SB further went on to say that the MoD has allocated £3.5K for the nature of lived experience evidence (which could include the design and distribution of a survey), but that to have it professionally tailored by organisations such as FiMT, the costs were more likely to be significantly higher. The main issue with the draft survey in its current format is that it takes no account of the differing cohorts of veterans (based on age, pension types etc).

• VAPC does have some access to existing analysis from organisations such as FiMT and the OVA. Four of the regional VAPCs have engaged with the Defence Medical Welfare Service (DMWS). This interaction adds greater value and should promote interfacing across the regions. The Veterans Places, Pathways and People (VPPP) programme (now rebranded ‘Thriving Together’) will be an extremely useful collaborative tool across the regions for such data sharing.

• Allied to the VPPP factor, all major charities in the veteran space are conducting surveys and whilst at risk of ‘survey fatigue’, this will hopefully allow the VAPCs to gather information from a number of sources in order to formulate effective input to Min. V&P.

• Work is ongoing on strategy and governance and has included a recently completed piece on the grievance reporting process. This will be circulated in due course.

• The UK CVC are aware that they should not interfere with the independence of the regions as the regions have different views and strategies need to reflect the regionally variant demographics. These differing views and requirements need to be reflected in the annual report to Min. V&P but cross-referred to their origin so it is easier for ministerial staff to reference.

• In answer to concern from RD regarding the legitimacy of individual (pension) case-work, SB went on to explain that under existing legislation (social security act) that the VAPC can engage in assistance to veterans seeking help with the WPS and the AFCS. Since the legislation was enacted however, application and appeal processes have changed and claimants can now go to the ombudsman. The changes mean that case-working need not be used as there are organisations that can do that work. The prime route for assistance should be signposting. We have to be very careful in today’s litigious environment that VAPC members do not mis-advise veterans or give the wrong information that would lead to the veteran being further disadvantaged. The caveat is when VAPC members are ‘qualified’ advisors working for organisations such as the AFPS or SSAFA, they should ensure their advice is delivered from those organisations and not the VAPC.

• The moratorium on recruiting members and chairs is already causing concern with some regions being up to 16 members short. Many regions are co-opting but this is an unsatisfactory and untenable solution. The situation is unlikely to improve until full engagement is achieved with Min V&P.

• Summing up, SB thanked all for their continued commitment and support. VAPC as a whole is moving in the right direction but without clear direction and the introduction of the secondary legislation, is in danger of losing credibility. VAPC should not be competing with one another and other external organisations and the key word both across the VAPC and indeed the sector, is collaboration.

Q&A

• PLT accepted that around issues of liability, data protection etc we technically expose ourselves and the VAPC generally to risk, this ‘move away’ nevertheless needed to be handed sensitively – we all know that not all committees/members are in agreement with this and that we have a vast pool of expertise that had contributed enormously over past years to our original, primary objective which was to help veterans with especially intractable problems where a non-Vets UK intercession might succeed where others had not – even by the ‘professionals’

• KS Suggested that to trigger an easier response from Min. V&P to a VAPC report, a three-minute animated download may be very effective. Seconded by CJ.

• RD understands the sensitivities about casework but felt that we should be getting involved. SB reiterated the potential risks and pointed out that signposting is the best option but that records should be kept of requests for help. Two or three similar requests points to an issue and that can be pushed up to AFVS as process failure rather than individual casework. GC pointed out that staffing within AFVS has been streamlined and they would not be able to cope with a multitude of individual approaches.

• IT suggested that member induction could include information on the larger charities that can be used in signposting. This was supported.

• KS advertised the Forces Connect app – a useful signposting tool. A summary of the app is here. The app can be downloaded from the app store by searching for ‘Forces connect’ (post meeting – JS has downloaded the app and can testify to its efficacy).

• JS informed the committee that Veterans Outreach Support (www.vosuk.org) had been awarded the AFCFT contract to continue VPPP (under the new ‘Thriving Together’ banner) into the second phase. There is a direct correlation in VAPC and VPPP regions and it was recommended that all regions collaborate closely with their respective Thriving Together portfolio managers.

5. Brief by Sarah Austin - Chair of Beyond the Wire CIC

Beyond the Wire formally stood up as a CIC in July 2024 and was founded by Jilly Carrell whose husband died in Service in 2021. The organisation has all of the key pillars in place such as governance, directors, board advisors and working groups to start work in earnest this Autumn. BTW now has over 90 members and both supports spouses, partners and families of those that have died in Service and also lobbies government and other agencies to improve the recognition and support of those affected by death in within the Military connected community. SA kindly gave a brief on BTW. Bullet points as follows:

• Experiences of loss differ greatly but the common factor amongst BTW members is that most, if not all experienced bad aspects with the attitude, understanding or treatment from the MoD. The military family can be likened to an oak tree with shallow roots – no established communal family, unstable environment and transient lives. Civilians however live in stable communities, are static and the support root system becomes much deeper.

• The CIC have been talking to a coroner to discuss the differing treatment in suicide and whether it is attributed to service life or family life. BTW is keen that the current Policy regarding family financial support is revised to deliver single and standard compensation

• The CIC are looking to increase the amount of research in this area and are grateful to organisations such as AFCFT for their work so far into the post bereavement process.

• There needs to be a single point of access to resources which will provide holistic help or signposting for all aspects of concern. More research is also needed in the prevention of death area. SA stressed that BTW is not here to duplicate what services are already available from organisations such as the War Widows or Scotty’s Little Soldiers. The key is collaboration and signposting to ensure that the best and most appropriate help is offered.

• The CIC is engaging with ministers to have the terms ‘bereaved’ and ‘injured or bereaved’ changed to ‘military connected families’ which gives a much broader span of people including both serving and veteran families.

• Under current ‘rules’ there is little understanding of the additional issues created when families are told to vacate married accommodation and given other time constraints to have to relocate, look for employment and schooling etc. BTW will lobby for a minimum two year ‘breathing time’ so that families can prepare for life outside of the military environment.

• BTW will look to have the benefits policy streamlined so that military connected families are not disadvantaged by delays in payments and receive full entitlements regardless of cause of death.

• At present, there is huge variation in the training for military visiting officers. BTW will lobby for this to be rectified.

• BTW may, down the line, look to expand their services into areas such as divorce and early medical discharge. They would also look to change the word ‘termination’ when used in the context of leaving the armed forces.

There being no questions following a comprehensive and detailed brief, GC thanked SA for her time and wished BTW all the very best for the future.

6. Brief by Craig Jones - Fighting with Pride

CJ gave a brief update on Fighting with Pride which included the following points:

• A new campaign has been initiated named Op Crescendo which will bring to a conclusion 5 years work to secure financial reparations for LGBT veterans and their families.

• It is anticipated that there will be a debate in parliament in December to discuss Lord Etherton’s review and in particular recommendation 28 (out of 49 – 48 of which have already been accepted).

• Work is progressing on getting an LGBT+ memorial at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire.

• FWP are continuously working on bringing back those adversely affected by the wrong doing back into the community. A recent event where WRAC personnel who were dismissed service were awarded their berets in recognition of their re-affirmation into the armed forces community,

• The government has set aside a total sum of £50m in compensation for those LGBT+ personnel that were punished and dismissed Service but considering there are around 4000 veterans affected, that amounts to around £12.5k per person – totally inappropriate considering (alone) the financial consequences of being made to leave under inappropriate (and now illegal) circumstances.

7. Common Interest Groups

• Debra Soper who now Chairs the Finance and Debt CIG was unable to make the meeting but has been updating the executive with her formative discussions.

• PLT suffered from SITF (sudden IT faff) and dropped out of the meeting. He has subsequently sent one of the points that he was going to raise for information, as follows - I’d wanted to include in my Housing CIG brief another case I’m currently working on with SSAFA locally. This relates to a young soldier who left the army earlier this year and has been accepted for housing by ourselves. We have a suitable property available in Morden but are totally mired in an easement problem with Southern Gas Networks and the London Borough of Merton – basically 3 sets of solicitors over whom we have no ability to get them to sort this out more rapidly. This means that we cannot formally offer this property nor give a realistic time frame on when it will become available. In turn, the soldier – married and with 2 young children, one with Special Needs – are still in their MQ (in Hounslow). DIO have already taken them to court once to evict them – the Judge threw it out – but DIO have another day in court in late November. Common sense is that a special case is made to allow them to remain in their MQ until our property becomes available. Unfortunately, DIO have zero interest in the soldier and his circumstances and are sticking to their rule book.

The Minister (Al Carns) is aware of it as is the Controller of SSAFA – but no one in a position to make a decision is prepared to as their ‘advisors’ reckon that this will set a precedence. It won’t – it’s just a single special case. Currently, Al Carns seems like a rabbit wedged in front of the proverbial headlights. We know there’s also a parallel case (though not one of ours) of a veteran with 5 children who has got terminal cancer. Yet all DIO are interested in is getting their MQ back.

8. AOB

1.  GC informed the group that he will shortly be deploying to Iraq to work for a year.

Given the moratorium on recruiting chairs and members and following a discussion at the Chairs Council, he will remain in post and work virtually with the possibility of attending a F2F meeting at some stage next year subject to the stars aligning.

2.  DB made people aware that the NHS commissioned and has now started to deliver a Suicide, Bereavement and Support pack to serving and veteran personnel.

• With regard to Op Courage has been expanded to encompass the transition and complex services.

• In the criminal and justice area, the Forcer protocol track and trace for veterans has been established.

• In response, GC informed the group that health and wellbeing group was up and running under a former RAMC Colonel. There is also a criminal justice system CIG now established.

1. KS raised the point that there has historically been a paucity of serving and veteran families that offer themselves for fostering and/or adoption, probably caused by the fact that such families may not think themselves eligible. KS offered to see if she could get someone to come in as a guest speaker at a future meeting.

2. JS remarked that we should, as a committee, continue to ‘lie low and wait’ until such times that we start getting positive direction and guidance from Min. V&P. We should all continue to do the work we are doing and continue to feed any pertinent information up the chain.

9. Date and location of next meeting

TBC – JS will send out doodle polls (or similar) for meetings in Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct next year. Hopefully, we may be able to achieve a F2F at some stage (with a target of the April meeting).