Guidance

VAPC south west England: meeting minutes 29 May 2024

Updated 27 June 2024

Meeting time

10am to 3pm

Meeting location

Mount Site, Taunton, Somerset

1. Attendance

Committee members attending:

• Jeff Spencer (Chair) (JS)
• Chris Rose (Vice Chair) (CR)
• Duncan Tilley (DT)
• Garry Pither (GP)
• Guy Williams (GW)
• Kieran Bird (KB)
• Leigh Bowen (LB)
• Natasha Mason (NM)
• Philip Orr (PO)
• Rachel Brannagan (RB – co-opted)
• Tony Thompson (TT)

Virtually:

• Andrew Ottaway (AO),
• Anica Alvarez Nishio (AAN),
• Michael Bryan (MB),
• Maria Riberio (observer)

1.1 Apologies

Apologies for absence were received from 8 members and co-opted: - Ash Jones (AJ) - Barry Firth (BF) - Ben Obese-Jecty (BOJ co-opted) - David Wood (DW) - Emlyn Phennah (EP) - Franklin Owusu-Antwi (FOA) - Hamilton Elliott (HE) - Iain Henderson (IH)

2. Chatham House rules

The rules were reiterated, with a request that the intended confidentiality of anything discussed as being ‘off the record’ or of an intrinsically sensitive nature be respected as such, and if mentioned outside the VAPC perimeter should not be attributed to VAPC or an individual attendee of this meeting.

3. Conflicts of interest

While the SW VAPC recognises the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, it also recognises benefits drawn from the lived experience of its members. We, therefore, operate a policy of naming and noting any activities or experiences which could be considered conflicts, while concurrently drawing upon the widest experiences of its members to inform its work.

At all times we endeavour to clarify explicitly when members are acting on behalf of the committee and when they are acting as private individuals.

No conflicts of interest declared.

4. Welcome: JS

JS welcomed all attendees including those joining by video link and hoped all had had the opportunity to study the pre-reads and agenda.  Passed on apologies from those unable to attend.

5. Minutes of last meeting

Chris discussed the last set of minutes. This meeting’s minutes and those from the previous will be circulated together.

VPPP has been dealt with.

West Country surges. Surges were challenging due to RFCA resource limitations.

Breakfast clubs: These and particularly ASDICs remain in a period of stagnation due to financial limitations. In general discussion a point was raised that most veterans do not need support. There was a cautionary note that wider veterans do not want to be seen as a needy community.

The annual report to the Minister. The committee should start to think about what the committee may wish to report, likely key points should be ready for end of Jun, with the final report drafted for the end of July. The Chair highlighted this year’s report likely to focus on how we build strong foundations over providing detailed data. The report might focus on how things are landing.  (Afternote: due to the General Election, it has been decided to delay the inputs from the VAPC to April 2025, necessitating completion of the regional reports by mid-February 2025).

The committee has expressed interest in continuing to find stakeholders who could give useful presentations.

Action: Jeff to contact SW Armed Forces Partnership Board.

6. Purdah

There was a short discussion on any Purdah implications impacting the committee. The committee’s normal business can continue. Caution should be exercised regarding external engagement. Election guidance for civil servants

7. Dates of meetings

These were confirmed.

8. Chair’s update

Jeff outlined the VAPC Role in outline is to feed back to the Minister what is going right or wrong – ‘ground truth’ and the lived experience of veterans. This information could it was envisaged come from a range of sources – veterans, local councils, charities, etc. A theme of the meeting is to look at how we as a committee, build up connections with veterans.

9. AFC & ERS Presentation

Rachel gave a presentation to the committee on the Armed Forces Covenant and Defence Employer Recognition, which is part of the MOD. This is any employer in the region who has signed the AFC. The main aim is to support employers who employ and support reservists.

There are 9 AFC pledges.  Local Authorities focus on their legal requirements and on supporting veterans and their families.

Discussion:

AFC renewed every 5 years. AFC covenants increasing at ~25 a week.

There was discussion on members knowing organisations who were not keeping to their pledge. Rachel outlined there was recourse to challenge employers through the RFCA AFC team. Natasha gave an employer’s view including some of the pledges can be worked on over a number of years. Tony proposed that this could be a potential VAPC role to review employer AFC commitments? Chris highlighted we needed to also look at the other side of the coin and highlighting those that are doing well. Jeff saw value in better integration between the RFCA and VAPC in regard to the AFC. Anica queried: In large organisations (public sector), can a part of that organisation join the covenant? Rachel responded and both agreed to take it offline. ACTION: RB and AAN to discuss.

An AFC is a pledge from organisations who wish to demonstrate their commitment to the Armed Forces Community.

Veterans - In general, as strong hook to getting employers and organisation to join the covenant is the skills veterans bring to an employer.

Service Spouse & Partners – Military spouses and partners strongly supported.

Reserves – The RFCA main focus. The AFC team try and highlight the positives bring into their organisation. There was discussion about employers releasing reservists for operational commitments.

Cadets & Cadet Force Adult Volunteers – AFC team highlighting the benefits cadet leaders bring to their organisations and encourage members of staff to become volunteers.

National events – The AFC team tries to encourage employers to support events such as Armed forces day, remembrance day etc. Additionally, they try to encourage employers to offer commercial discounts.

Defence Employer Recognition Scheme : Bronze, Silver, Gold

Discussion followed: Natasha highlighted on some occasions employers can be approached by requests for sponsor money having been awarded a bronze, silver or gold award which can become a negative issue for an employer. There was also discussion on the challenges of the education sector supporting the AFC.

10. Project Mithreum

Andy presented on a proposal for a confidential platform for veterans to engage with the VAPCs following Min Def People and Families direction. Approach – Engage with Def people and Families to gather data. The vision of the platform is for an anonymised platform using pseudonymisation.

Discussion:

Duncan - Who enters the info? Intent is the veteran, but we are going to have to test this.

Anica raised some concerns regarding the analysis of the information. Do we have qualified people, and do they have capacity? Will the pseudonymisation genuinely mask the end user? What is the human expectation level? There must be feedback as veterans routinely get poor feedback and if this was not addressed then we could create a negative experience.

Philip echoed Anica’s points and suggested the costs, data recording (GDPR), ability to respond should also be teased out before committing.

Duncan - What might the likely cost be? It will depend on the volume. £1000 per license.

11. AFCS

Jeff presented. The original VAPC statue was focused on the AFCS/War pensions. Last year’s AFSC QQR suggested the VAPCs should be more involved in the AFCS. Three of the committee’s new joiners have been focused on this area. We as a committee think there are issues with the previous AFCS scheme with the committee’s concerns needing to be articulated to Vets UK; the new AFCS scheme should also be assessed for effectiveness.

There was short discussion that we need to challenge our sponsor and was there a conflict of interest. The wider view was Vets UK administratively sponsor us and we have a mandate to challenge policy where we see there are issues affecting veterans. Anica raised a suggestion that now might be timely to have a (SW) VAPC website where we can articulate our mandate.

Discussion:

Leigh looked at what we, the SW might do which has been socialised with Vets UK in a letter.

The Governance response is waiting for an IMEG report before progressing.

Leigh’s view is the scheme is not a level playing field across a range of areas (appeals, timeline pressures are all on the claimant, more complicated, can be deemed to be adversarial etc).

Agreed:  The committee agreed to continue to be the critical friend on this issue. We want to seek a better outcome for veterans and soldiers where the committee’s view is this is not a fair scheme.

Action: Chris proposed he and Jeff could take this to the Council of Chairs.

12. Lunch

13. Housing

Kieran presented on housing. Core question: What does the VAPC, and specifically VAPC SW, want to do in this area?

The council has key duties:

1. Prevent – Try and find a solution to prevent someone becoming homeless

2. Relief duty – The council provides services to prevent homelessness

It was noted that the offer varies from council to council.  It was noted there is a chronic shortage of housing available to the councils.

The housing group has looked at what role Op Fortitude could contribute to this area. Kieran emphasised that veterans already gain a positive edge over others in some counties due to service charities and Op Fortitude.  It is there to help those individuals that fall between the policy gaps. Proposal : Councils would give an automatic allocation of housing to those with a war pension.

Discussion:

A view was expressed that in a wider housing crisis, it will be a real challenge to push why a veteran has a better call on housing over others meeting housing criteria. (Note: If you have served more than 6 years, the applicant is treated as a local). RBL, Shelter and SSAFA do have an effect in this area in supporting veterans.

Is this a policy question over and above us going out on a case-by-case basis?

Natasha - There are issues in this area where family members taking in a veteran, could affect their benefits.

Could changing the benefit rules be an avenue to pursue? Concerns that changing policy would be challenging.

Could the MOD flag a veteran to councils that this person needs housing assistance?

Discussion highlighted there is a gap up to 6 years before a service person is eligible for CTP.

The committee recognised this is not just a SW issue, but a national one.

Kieran highlighted the housing expert advice line run by DLUC.

Natasha highlighted the Services ‘Help to buy’ scheme. Sadly it has not grown in line with inflation, and it was a view in the committee it can only contribute a tiny fraction of a house purchase.

Action: Guy: Will raise the matter in the Transition Common Interest Group, chaired by the London chair.

14. Vets UK

Jeff introduced the item. How can we find out about problems or when a veteran has put in a complaint against Vets UK. Proposal: a note is added to VetsUK letters to veterans that signposts the VAPC are available to assist. The VAPC could be sign posted as a neutral third party.

Duncan - The discussion aired a view that the VAPC is not able to tackle any appeals. Jeff highlighted he has asked Leigh to join him at the next UK Vets performance meeting on 28 June.

Tony – Could Vets UK state the reasons why an application has been rejected? Currently there are no reasons why an applicant is rejected.

Action: Leigh & Jeff to raise this suggestion at the next Vets UK performance meeting.

Chris – Attended a meeting on the digitalization process of applications. Chris offered to seek a second briefing which any VAPC member could attend. The committee saw benefits that this activity could help resourcing timings and benefits applicants to give them a steer on when their application might be processed.

Action: Chris to setup a further brief on digitisation from Vets UK digitisation team.

Anica – Suggested succinct infographics over long and complex briefings might have more utility, and requested Vets UK consider providing these.

15. Annual Report

Jeff introduced how we might approach the annual report. Are there ways we can find quick fixes to fill in missing data areas such as forums. Chris has chased the MOD on what is required in the Annual report format and content. The Chair encouraged all to engage with organisations to understand what issues exist in the region. Discussion raised the potential impact on how veterans are treated will likely impact recruiting where there are stories of veterans being treated poorly.

Anica suggested that a framing could be a positive message: that the vast majority of veterans are assets to communities, business.  This should be the focus.

Jeff – Where are the problems that we are not aware of. Several committee members shared they were aware of veterans going into mentor recruits in training establishments. There was discussion around how much we should base our points in the annual report around evidence-based decisions.

16. AOB

Natasha – Age UK Plymouth runs successful events for veterans – games afternoons, brunch clubs, etc.

Tony – will send a written update to Jeff ACTION: TONY to send written update.

Rachel – Rachel has been approached from the NHS about Armed Forces link workers and establishing Armed Forces hubs in Taunton and Yeovil as  pilots. Employer Recognition Scheme. 21 submissions for Gold and 40 Silvers for this year.

Duncan – Was there an opportunity for presentations from other region Chairs and/or the Common Interest Groups? The committee saw this as a good suggestion. Chris also raised as we are so forward leading, we might be asked to brief the other regions. He is briefing the SE region in his national VC capacity.

Andy – Could the details of the Naval veteran with lung cancer be forwarded to him. Is there more we can do in the Female Veterans Transformation group? Natasha is linked in. Could Lisa Jarvis be invited to give a presentation?

Maria – VPPP funding confirmed for the next 3 year for the SW for veteran initiatives. There is a consultation, which is now live.

Chris – Has had a conversation with the new Comd SW who has promised to be engaged with veterans’ affairs. Brig (retd) Nev Holmes as the CEO of Wessex RFCA is keen to be engaged where possible.

Chris – Has had several calls with Devon County Council, noting that they, like many counties, had resource challenges, limiting their capacity to assist veterans. They do have angles into Exeter University for research, which could be worth following up.  Apparently, 25% of all veterans are settling in the SW, but it was unknown if the county or region had sought commensurate finding from Government.

17. Date of next meeting

Monthly meeting: 18 June 2024, 17.30-19:00 (via Zoom).